https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164895 Deduction claims under rule 6(4)(m) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules could not be reopened through revision or rectification where the assessee had not properly placed the claims and supporting evidence before the revisional or first appellate authority. The Tribunal had already examined the labour-charges claim in light of the governing law, including the Supreme Court principles relied on by the assessee, and no apparent error justified rectification under section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Additional deduction claims first raised in review were not shown to form part of the earlier adjudication. The High Court treated the impugned orders as based on findings of fact and law and found no substantial question of law. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164895 Deduction claims under rule 6(4)(m) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules could not be reopened through revision or rectification where the assessee had not properly placed the claims and supporting evidence before the revisional or first appellate authority. The Tribunal had already examined the labour-charges claim in light of the governing law, including the Supreme Court principles relied on by the assessee, and no apparent error justified rectification under section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Additional deduction claims first raised in review were not shown to form part of the earlier adjudication. The High Court treated the impugned orders as based on findings of fact and law and found no substantial question of law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164895