<?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 (7) TMI 641 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163509</link>
    <description>The fourth proviso to section 28(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act bars making a provisional assessment after 180 days from seizure of accounts and records. That limit applies to the making of the assessment order itself, not merely the commencement of proceedings, so an order passed beyond the period is void for want of jurisdiction rather than a curable irregularity. The amendment was operative when the impugned order was made, and the challenge was maintainable despite arguments based on merger or infructuousness. The writ challenge was accepted and the provisional assessment was quashed, leaving the revenue free to proceed with regular assessment in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:36:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 641 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163509</link>
      <description>The fourth proviso to section 28(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act bars making a provisional assessment after 180 days from seizure of accounts and records. That limit applies to the making of the assessment order itself, not merely the commencement of proceedings, so an order passed beyond the period is void for want of jurisdiction rather than a curable irregularity. The amendment was operative when the impugned order was made, and the challenge was maintainable despite arguments based on merger or infructuousness. The writ challenge was accepted and the provisional assessment was quashed, leaving the revenue free to proceed with regular assessment in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>