<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1416 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191016</link>
    <description>The note concerns whether an uncommunicated deferment order could be relied on to exclude time for reassessment limitation, and whether the assessing authority retained power to reopen the matter within the statutory period. It records competing limitation contentions and part of the court&#039;s reasoning on those questions, but the supplied text does not state the final operative determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:19:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1416 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191016</link>
      <description>The note concerns whether an uncommunicated deferment order could be relied on to exclude time for reassessment limitation, and whether the assessing authority retained power to reopen the matter within the statutory period. It records competing limitation contentions and part of the court&#039;s reasoning on those questions, but the supplied text does not state the final operative determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>