<?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>2008 (6) TMI 555 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163534</link>
    <description>An exemption granted by an earlier notification under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and not limited to a fixed period could be withdrawn prospectively by a later notification; in the absence of an enforceable promise for a definite duration, promissory estoppel did not apply. Recovery of sales tax arrears as arrears of land revenue authorised attachment and sale, but did not imply a power of forfeiture, which is penal in nature and must be expressly conferred by statute, so the forfeiture order was quashed. A recovery proclamation or restraint notice issued to prevent alienation of property was treated as a permissible recovery measure and was not invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 09:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 555 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163534</link>
      <description>An exemption granted by an earlier notification under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and not limited to a fixed period could be withdrawn prospectively by a later notification; in the absence of an enforceable promise for a definite duration, promissory estoppel did not apply. Recovery of sales tax arrears as arrears of land revenue authorised attachment and sale, but did not imply a power of forfeiture, which is penal in nature and must be expressly conferred by statute, so the forfeiture order was quashed. A recovery proclamation or restraint notice issued to prevent alienation of property was treated as a permissible recovery measure and was not invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>