<?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>1991 (1) TMI 441 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188978</link>
    <description>Fiscal classifications in stamp duty matters are entitled to wide latitude, and a concession or exemption may be withdrawn under the governing statute without creating a vested right in beneficiaries. The Karnataka Stamp Act framework was described as permitting withdrawal of remission under Section 9, recovery of proper duty on documents later used in the State under Section 19, and recovery of duty not duly or short levied under Section 46A. The commentary further notes that treating State and Central Government employees differently for stamp duty concessions was considered a permissible classification, and that no enforceable right to a prior personal hearing arose before recovery of the duty in the circumstances described.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:40:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 441 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188978</link>
      <description>Fiscal classifications in stamp duty matters are entitled to wide latitude, and a concession or exemption may be withdrawn under the governing statute without creating a vested right in beneficiaries. The Karnataka Stamp Act framework was described as permitting withdrawal of remission under Section 9, recovery of proper duty on documents later used in the State under Section 19, and recovery of duty not duly or short levied under Section 46A. The commentary further notes that treating State and Central Government employees differently for stamp duty concessions was considered a permissible classification, and that no enforceable right to a prior personal hearing arose before recovery of the duty in the circumstances described.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>