<?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>2017 (5) TMI 1120 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343382</link>
    <description>Sufficient notice and repeated opportunities to produce books and supporting documents were given in the re-assessment proceedings, and the matter was even kept in abeyance to enable participation. On that factual basis, a later complaint of breach of natural justice and denial of hearing was not accepted. The rectification applications were also found unsustainable because they were not backed by the required documents, time had been granted to supply them, and the dealer failed to comply within the stipulated period. The third rectification application was treated as non-entertainable in light of the earlier rejections and repeated defaults, and the challenge to the re-assessment and rectification orders was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1120 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343382</link>
      <description>Sufficient notice and repeated opportunities to produce books and supporting documents were given in the re-assessment proceedings, and the matter was even kept in abeyance to enable participation. On that factual basis, a later complaint of breach of natural justice and denial of hearing was not accepted. The rectification applications were also found unsustainable because they were not backed by the required documents, time had been granted to supply them, and the dealer failed to comply within the stipulated period. The third rectification application was treated as non-entertainable in light of the earlier rejections and repeated defaults, and the challenge to the re-assessment and rectification orders was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>