<?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 (3) TMI 1041 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165364</link>
    <description>Revisional power under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be used to restore a best judgment assessment where the assessee&#039;s case was not properly considered by the assessing officer. Even if the appellate order appeared prejudicial to the Revenue, the revisional authority was required to ensure proper consideration of the assessee&#039;s position before interfering. The proper course was to remit the matter for fresh adjudication rather than set aside the appellate order and reinstate the original assessment. The revision order was therefore not sustainable in the form adopted, and remand was necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:38:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1041 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165364</link>
      <description>Revisional power under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be used to restore a best judgment assessment where the assessee&#039;s case was not properly considered by the assessing officer. Even if the appellate order appeared prejudicial to the Revenue, the revisional authority was required to ensure proper consideration of the assessee&#039;s position before interfering. The proper course was to remit the matter for fresh adjudication rather than set aside the appellate order and reinstate the original assessment. The revision order was therefore not sustainable in the form adopted, and remand was necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>