<?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 (1) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163412</link>
    <description>Security under section 28AA(7) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be demanded only from a person whose liability had already been actually determined under section 28AA(4). The deeming fiction in section 28AA(4) applied only where the transit pass was not delivered at the exit point, and the amended Explanation enlarging &quot;owner&quot; to include a hired vehicle carrier did not permit liability to be shifted by implication from one person to another. Because the earlier assessment fastened liability only on a different person and not on the petitioner, detention of the petitioner&#039;s vehicle and goods and the demand for security were unauthorised and invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:48:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163412</link>
      <description>Security under section 28AA(7) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be demanded only from a person whose liability had already been actually determined under section 28AA(4). The deeming fiction in section 28AA(4) applied only where the transit pass was not delivered at the exit point, and the amended Explanation enlarging &quot;owner&quot; to include a hired vehicle carrier did not permit liability to be shifted by implication from one person to another. Because the earlier assessment fastened liability only on a different person and not on the petitioner, detention of the petitioner&#039;s vehicle and goods and the demand for security were unauthorised and invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>