<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (9) TMI 331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158144</link>
    <description>A demand raised pursuant to an assessment remained payable even while the Supreme Court&#039;s interim order restrained coercive recovery. The Court reasoned that section 13(1) required payment within the prescribed time after service of demand notice, and section 13(2) operated automatically on default. The stay order suspended recovery proceedings but did not bar voluntary payment or extinguish the statutory consequence of non-payment. The assessee was therefore treated as a defaulter for the relevant period, and penalty under section 13(2) remained recoverable. The Court also followed an earlier Division Bench decision on the same statutory scheme and found the Rajasthan ruling distinguishable on different facts and a different legal setting.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:25:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158144</link>
      <description>A demand raised pursuant to an assessment remained payable even while the Supreme Court&#039;s interim order restrained coercive recovery. The Court reasoned that section 13(1) required payment within the prescribed time after service of demand notice, and section 13(2) operated automatically on default. The stay order suspended recovery proceedings but did not bar voluntary payment or extinguish the statutory consequence of non-payment. The assessee was therefore treated as a defaulter for the relevant period, and penalty under section 13(2) remained recoverable. The Court also followed an earlier Division Bench decision on the same statutory scheme and found the Rajasthan ruling distinguishable on different facts and a different legal setting.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>