<?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 (1) TMI 660 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162286</link>
    <description>The remission power under section 13(2-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is confined to the assessee in default or another person legally liable for the statutory levy. An auction purchaser of a defaulter&#039;s property, even if the property is subject to the State&#039;s prior charge and the purchaser holds sale proceeds, is not within that class. The Court reasoned that the interest or penalty under section 13(2)(ii) remains the defaulter&#039;s liability, and extending section 13(2-A) to an auction purchaser would enlarge the provision beyond its terms. The petitioner-bank therefore had no locus to seek waiver or reduction of the levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2014 13:45:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 660 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162286</link>
      <description>The remission power under section 13(2-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is confined to the assessee in default or another person legally liable for the statutory levy. An auction purchaser of a defaulter&#039;s property, even if the property is subject to the State&#039;s prior charge and the purchaser holds sale proceeds, is not within that class. The Court reasoned that the interest or penalty under section 13(2)(ii) remains the defaulter&#039;s liability, and extending section 13(2-A) to an auction purchaser would enlarge the provision beyond its terms. The petitioner-bank therefore had no locus to seek waiver or reduction of the levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>