<?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 (9) TMI 567 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159254</link>
    <description>Assessment proceedings stayed by court order were treated as suspended as a whole, and the period of stay was excluded in computing limitation under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. On that basis, the proposition notice issued after adding back the excluded period was held to be within time, so the limitation objection failed. The Court also construed the statutory exclusion provision as permitting the Commissioner to record deferment on the basis of an existing stay, and upheld the deferment order as within jurisdiction. The belated objection that no notice had been given before the deferment order was not entertained and was treated as non-fatal in the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:24:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 567 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159254</link>
      <description>Assessment proceedings stayed by court order were treated as suspended as a whole, and the period of stay was excluded in computing limitation under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. On that basis, the proposition notice issued after adding back the excluded period was held to be within time, so the limitation objection failed. The Court also construed the statutory exclusion provision as permitting the Commissioner to record deferment on the basis of an existing stay, and upheld the deferment order as within jurisdiction. The belated objection that no notice had been given before the deferment order was not entertained and was treated as non-fatal in the circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>