<?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>1997 (7) TMI 612 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159179</link>
    <description>Amended reassessment provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act were treated as applicable to the assessment years in question because the amendment widened reassessment to cover wrong deductions or exemptions and operated with effect for assessments still within limitation. The phrase &quot;proceed to assess or reassess&quot; was construed to require only initiation of reassessment proceedings within the prescribed period, so service of notice in time preserved limitation even if the final order was made later. In the absence of any statutory deadline for completion after valid initiation, delay in concluding reassessment did not by itself invalidate the proceedings, particularly where the delay was explained by related litigation and unavailable records.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 612 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159179</link>
      <description>Amended reassessment provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act were treated as applicable to the assessment years in question because the amendment widened reassessment to cover wrong deductions or exemptions and operated with effect for assessments still within limitation. The phrase &quot;proceed to assess or reassess&quot; was construed to require only initiation of reassessment proceedings within the prescribed period, so service of notice in time preserved limitation even if the final order was made later. In the absence of any statutory deadline for completion after valid initiation, delay in concluding reassessment did not by itself invalidate the proceedings, particularly where the delay was explained by related litigation and unavailable records.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>