<?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>2005 (6) TMI 536 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162618</link>
    <description>Under the Kara Samadhan Scheme, earlier deposits made during the pendency of appeal had to be taken into account when testing compliance with the prescribed payment condition. Condition No. 7 required prior tax, penalty or interest paid in excess of the specified amounts to be adjusted toward the Scheme requirement, so such payments could not be ignored or treated as duplicative. On that reading, an assessee who had already made higher deposits was entitled to waiver of the balance penalty and interest. The endorsement rejecting Scheme benefit was therefore unsustainable, and the writ petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 536 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162618</link>
      <description>Under the Kara Samadhan Scheme, earlier deposits made during the pendency of appeal had to be taken into account when testing compliance with the prescribed payment condition. Condition No. 7 required prior tax, penalty or interest paid in excess of the specified amounts to be adjusted toward the Scheme requirement, so such payments could not be ignored or treated as duplicative. On that reading, an assessee who had already made higher deposits was entitled to waiver of the balance penalty and interest. The endorsement rejecting Scheme benefit was therefore unsustainable, and the writ petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162618</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>