<?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>2003 (2) TMI 473 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162733</link>
    <description>Forfeiture under section 18-AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applies only to tax collected in excess and actually retained by the dealer to prevent unjust enrichment. Where the assessee had already refunded part of the excess collection to the customer, that refunded amount could not be forfeited, because the provision does not extend to sums no longer retained by the dealer. A construction requiring the customer to pursue a separate claim against the Department would defeat the object of the provision and create unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The forfeiture order was therefore interfered with only to the extent of the refunded amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:34:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 473 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162733</link>
      <description>Forfeiture under section 18-AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applies only to tax collected in excess and actually retained by the dealer to prevent unjust enrichment. Where the assessee had already refunded part of the excess collection to the customer, that refunded amount could not be forfeited, because the provision does not extend to sums no longer retained by the dealer. A construction requiring the customer to pursue a separate claim against the Department would defeat the object of the provision and create unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The forfeiture order was therefore interfered with only to the extent of the refunded amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>