<?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>2006 (11) TMI 562 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162637</link>
    <description>The amended pre-deposit requirements under section 22(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 14(3) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 were held to apply to second appeals filed after the amendment, even though the returns had been filed earlier. The Court treated the right of appeal as vested, but distinguished that right from the statutory conditions attached to a later appellate remedy. It relied on prior High Court authority recognising that the Legislature may alter appellate conditions, and held that the amendment validly required pre-deposit before the second appeal could be entertained. The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:37:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 562 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162637</link>
      <description>The amended pre-deposit requirements under section 22(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 14(3) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 were held to apply to second appeals filed after the amendment, even though the returns had been filed earlier. The Court treated the right of appeal as vested, but distinguished that right from the statutory conditions attached to a later appellate remedy. It relied on prior High Court authority recognising that the Legislature may alter appellate conditions, and held that the amendment validly required pre-deposit before the second appeal could be entertained. The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>