<?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>2016 (6) TMI 860 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329151</link>
    <description>An appellate tribunal cannot sustain dismissal where it fails to decide the limited controversy actually raised in the appeal, here the levy of interest and penalty. The HC noted that the first appellate authority had partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, no cross-appeal or cross-objection had been filed by the State, and the Tribunal nevertheless went beyond the issue in dispute instead of ruling on merits. It also held that, because the first appellate order had been set aside in revision and that revisional challenge was pending, the appeals should not have been finally decided on an incomplete footing. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeals were restored for fresh consideration after the connected revisional proceedings attain finality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 860 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329151</link>
      <description>An appellate tribunal cannot sustain dismissal where it fails to decide the limited controversy actually raised in the appeal, here the levy of interest and penalty. The HC noted that the first appellate authority had partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, no cross-appeal or cross-objection had been filed by the State, and the Tribunal nevertheless went beyond the issue in dispute instead of ruling on merits. It also held that, because the first appellate order had been set aside in revision and that revisional challenge was pending, the appeals should not have been finally decided on an incomplete footing. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeals were restored for fresh consideration after the connected revisional proceedings attain finality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>