<?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>2009 (4) TMI 867 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164131</link>
    <description>A belatedly produced and uncorroborated agency agreement did not rebut the finding that the assessee was an independent dealer effecting taxable sales on its own account. The revisional authority was justified in treating the transaction as a sale by the assessee, sustaining assessment under the dealer-liability provisions rather than escaped turnover reassessment, and confirming penalty for taxable transactions carried out without proper registration and tax payment. The show-cause notice was also valid because it stated the grounds for revision without finally prejudging the matter, and the assessee had an opportunity to object. The revisional order was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 867 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164131</link>
      <description>A belatedly produced and uncorroborated agency agreement did not rebut the finding that the assessee was an independent dealer effecting taxable sales on its own account. The revisional authority was justified in treating the transaction as a sale by the assessee, sustaining assessment under the dealer-liability provisions rather than escaped turnover reassessment, and confirming penalty for taxable transactions carried out without proper registration and tax payment. The show-cause notice was also valid because it stated the grounds for revision without finally prejudging the matter, and the assessee had an opportunity to object. The revisional order was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>