<?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>2010 (9) TMI 961 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164829</link>
    <description>A statutory circular issued for tax administration binds departmental where it does not conflict with the Act. Applying that principle, belated revised returns disclosing additional tax liability were treated as capable of consideration under the Karnataka VAT scheme, because the machinery provisions on revised and incomplete returns are meant to support correction of errors and voluntary compliance. The impugned rejection was unsustainable because it ignored the circular, failed to consider relevant material, and showed non-application of mind even in respect of returns filed within time. The revised-return rejection, reassessment order and demand notice were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the circular.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 961 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164829</link>
      <description>A statutory circular issued for tax administration binds departmental where it does not conflict with the Act. Applying that principle, belated revised returns disclosing additional tax liability were treated as capable of consideration under the Karnataka VAT scheme, because the machinery provisions on revised and incomplete returns are meant to support correction of errors and voluntary compliance. The impugned rejection was unsustainable because it ignored the circular, failed to consider relevant material, and showed non-application of mind even in respect of returns filed within time. The revised-return rejection, reassessment order and demand notice were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the circular.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>