<?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 (2) TMI 1116 - Karnataka High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166368</link>
    <description>The Court remanded the matter for the respondent to provide Rule 31 details, directing the assessing authority to reconsider the case in light of Rule 31 and issue fresh orders accordingly. The revision petition was allowed due to the lack of clarity on whether the dealer furnished Rule 31 details to the assessing authority when claiming benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1116 - Karnataka High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166368</link>
      <description>The Court remanded the matter for the respondent to provide Rule 31 details, directing the assessing authority to reconsider the case in light of Rule 31 and issue fresh orders accordingly. The revision petition was allowed due to the lack of clarity on whether the dealer furnished Rule 31 details to the assessing authority when claiming benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>