<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1189 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183274</link>
    <description>A fair opportunity to furnish balance Form C declarations was required before assessment, and a short extension that ignored the assessee&#039;s explanation and hearing request did not meet that standard. The Karnataka High Court held that such a mechanical approach breached natural justice and vitiated the assessment. It also held that the discretion under Rule 12(7) to grant further time on sufficient cause must be exercised judiciously and fairly; a non-speaking refusal unsupported by meaningful consideration could not sustain the assessment. The appeals succeeded, the writ petitions were allowed, and the assessment was set aside with liberty to proceed afresh after receipt of the remaining declarations within the time directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1189 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183274</link>
      <description>A fair opportunity to furnish balance Form C declarations was required before assessment, and a short extension that ignored the assessee&#039;s explanation and hearing request did not meet that standard. The Karnataka High Court held that such a mechanical approach breached natural justice and vitiated the assessment. It also held that the discretion under Rule 12(7) to grant further time on sufficient cause must be exercised judiciously and fairly; a non-speaking refusal unsupported by meaningful consideration could not sustain the assessment. The appeals succeeded, the writ petitions were allowed, and the assessment was set aside with liberty to proceed afresh after receipt of the remaining declarations within the time directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>