<?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>2004 (8) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162224</link>
    <description>Amended section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act made a dealer liable to pay interest on delayed tax payment and allowed State law provisions to govern the due date, rate of interest, assessment and collection. The Karnataka High Court treated the Finance Act, 2000 amendments, including section 9(2B), as validating recovery of interest on arrears of central sales tax and as giving retrospective effect to earlier recovery steps, acts and orders relating to such interest. The earlier Supreme Court ruling on absence of a substantive interest provision was distinguished because it predated the amendment, and the challenge to interest recovery was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:15:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162224</link>
      <description>Amended section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act made a dealer liable to pay interest on delayed tax payment and allowed State law provisions to govern the due date, rate of interest, assessment and collection. The Karnataka High Court treated the Finance Act, 2000 amendments, including section 9(2B), as validating recovery of interest on arrears of central sales tax and as giving retrospective effect to earlier recovery steps, acts and orders relating to such interest. The earlier Supreme Court ruling on absence of a substantive interest provision was distinguished because it predated the amendment, and the challenge to interest recovery was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>