<?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>2001 (3) TMI 988 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160478</link>
    <description>A revisional order must be a speaking order supported by reasons and logical justification; where the authority restores an assessment without disclosing the basis for its conclusion, the order cannot be sustained. The High Court declined to decide the merits itself and held that the proper course was to set aside the defective revisional order and remit the matter for fresh consideration after notice and hearing, in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:52:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 988 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160478</link>
      <description>A revisional order must be a speaking order supported by reasons and logical justification; where the authority restores an assessment without disclosing the basis for its conclusion, the order cannot be sustained. The High Court declined to decide the merits itself and held that the proper course was to set aside the defective revisional order and remit the matter for fresh consideration after notice and hearing, in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>