<?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>2002 (5) TMI 822 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160804</link>
    <description>Section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 creates a special mechanism for recovering sales tax arrears through a Magistrate by treating the amount as if it were a fine imposed by him. That recovery power operates independently of the Magistrate&#039;s ordinary fine-imposing jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The fine ceiling in section 29(2) of the Code does not limit recovery under the special sales tax provision, because the latter functions notwithstanding the Code and permits collection of the tax dues in full. The objection based on lack of jurisdiction was therefore untenable, and the petition was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:15:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 822 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160804</link>
      <description>Section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 creates a special mechanism for recovering sales tax arrears through a Magistrate by treating the amount as if it were a fine imposed by him. That recovery power operates independently of the Magistrate&#039;s ordinary fine-imposing jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The fine ceiling in section 29(2) of the Code does not limit recovery under the special sales tax provision, because the latter functions notwithstanding the Code and permits collection of the tax dues in full. The objection based on lack of jurisdiction was therefore untenable, and the petition was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>