<?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 597 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163316</link>
    <description>A concessional sales tax notification for Government departments cannot be invoked merely because the purchaser receives Government support; the purchaser must actually answer that description, and the concession was therefore unavailable. Reassessment for escaped turnover was upheld because the record contained sufficient material, including the purchaser&#039;s declaration, to justify a belief that turnover had escaped assessment or that exemption had been wrongly allowed. The existence of a separate proceeding against the purchaser under section 8A(5)(a) did not bar reassessment of the assessee under section 12A, as the two provisions operate in different spheres. The assessment orders were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 12:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 597 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163316</link>
      <description>A concessional sales tax notification for Government departments cannot be invoked merely because the purchaser receives Government support; the purchaser must actually answer that description, and the concession was therefore unavailable. Reassessment for escaped turnover was upheld because the record contained sufficient material, including the purchaser&#039;s declaration, to justify a belief that turnover had escaped assessment or that exemption had been wrongly allowed. The existence of a separate proceeding against the purchaser under section 8A(5)(a) did not bar reassessment of the assessee under section 12A, as the two provisions operate in different spheres. The assessment orders were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>