<?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 (6) TMI 486 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162655</link>
    <description>For escaped-turnover reassessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, limitation runs from the notice initiating proceedings by the duly empowered authority, not from an earlier vigilance report, and the reassessment orders were held to be within the prescribed time. The Court also held that the Commissioner could validly appoint an officer to initiate and complete reassessment, and that this special reassessment power was not confined by the general turnover-based definition applicable to regular assessment. Withdrawal of one appointment and substitution of another did not invalidate proceedings already commenced, so the reassessment orders were upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:55:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 486 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162655</link>
      <description>For escaped-turnover reassessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, limitation runs from the notice initiating proceedings by the duly empowered authority, not from an earlier vigilance report, and the reassessment orders were held to be within the prescribed time. The Court also held that the Commissioner could validly appoint an officer to initiate and complete reassessment, and that this special reassessment power was not confined by the general turnover-based definition applicable to regular assessment. Withdrawal of one appointment and substitution of another did not invalidate proceedings already commenced, so the reassessment orders were upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>