<?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>1996 (1) TMI 422 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160019</link>
    <description>Limitation for completing fiscal assessments under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as part of the assessment machinery, not a vested immunity for the assessee. Because the amended proviso to section 12(5) extended the time for assessments relating to years ending before 1 August 1985, and the later retrospective amendment expressly deemed the substituted provisos always to have been in force, the assessment completed on 17 January 1989 was within the lawfully enlarged period. The court therefore held that retrospective enlargement of limitation was validly applicable and the plea that the assessment was time-barred failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:33:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 422 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160019</link>
      <description>Limitation for completing fiscal assessments under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as part of the assessment machinery, not a vested immunity for the assessee. Because the amended proviso to section 12(5) extended the time for assessments relating to years ending before 1 August 1985, and the later retrospective amendment expressly deemed the substituted provisos always to have been in force, the assessment completed on 17 January 1989 was within the lawfully enlarged period. The court therefore held that retrospective enlargement of limitation was validly applicable and the plea that the assessment was time-barred failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>