<?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>2018 (2) TMI 371 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354950</link>
    <description>An amendment to the reassessment provision expressly given retrospective effect was held to permit reassessment within the extended eight-year period under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The limitation objection to the Tribunal&#039;s remand order was therefore not accepted, because the retrospective amendment had already been recognised in earlier proceedings and validated the reassessment period relied on by the Tribunal. The remand itself was sustained, and the matter remained open for determination of taxable turnover before the first appellate authority, where the petitioner could raise all remaining contentions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:45:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 371 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354950</link>
      <description>An amendment to the reassessment provision expressly given retrospective effect was held to permit reassessment within the extended eight-year period under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The limitation objection to the Tribunal&#039;s remand order was therefore not accepted, because the retrospective amendment had already been recognised in earlier proceedings and validated the reassessment period relied on by the Tribunal. The remand itself was sustained, and the matter remained open for determination of taxable turnover before the first appellate authority, where the petitioner could raise all remaining contentions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>