<?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>1990 (9) TMI 339 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159579</link>
    <description>The appellate order displaced the original assessment order, so the assessment had no independent existence after appeal and had merged into the appellate decision. In suo motu revision, the Commissioner could examine and correct only any error in the appellate order, but could not directly annul the merged assessment order. The revisional power also did not authorise detailed directions on how a best judgment assessment ought to have been framed, because that would exceed correction of the appellate authority&#039;s error. The Commissioner&#039;s order was therefore set aside to the extent it cancelled both orders, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision within the proper revisional limits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:40:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 339 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159579</link>
      <description>The appellate order displaced the original assessment order, so the assessment had no independent existence after appeal and had merged into the appellate decision. In suo motu revision, the Commissioner could examine and correct only any error in the appellate order, but could not directly annul the merged assessment order. The revisional power also did not authorise detailed directions on how a best judgment assessment ought to have been framed, because that would exceed correction of the appellate authority&#039;s error. The Commissioner&#039;s order was therefore set aside to the extent it cancelled both orders, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision within the proper revisional limits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>