<?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>1998 (9) TMI 648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160952</link>
    <description>The amended composition provision under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was upheld as valid because the challenge was directly covered by binding precedent, and earlier authorities cited by the assessees were treated as distinguishable. The retrospective enactment making that amendment operative from an earlier date was also sustained, with the Court finding no basis to invalidate retrospective alteration of the composition levy. On the request for more time to opt for regular assessment under the alternative scheme, the Court granted four additional weeks because a substantial part of the original period had already expired when the order was received.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:47:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160952</link>
      <description>The amended composition provision under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was upheld as valid because the challenge was directly covered by binding precedent, and earlier authorities cited by the assessees were treated as distinguishable. The retrospective enactment making that amendment operative from an earlier date was also sustained, with the Court finding no basis to invalidate retrospective alteration of the composition levy. On the request for more time to opt for regular assessment under the alternative scheme, the Court granted four additional weeks because a substantial part of the original period had already expired when the order was received.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>