<?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 372 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354951</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be exercised only by a prescribed authority that is specifically and expressly authorised by the Government or the Commissioner. Because the Deputy Commissioner who passed the reassessment order was not expressly named or designated in the authorisation relied on, the court treated the order as lacking competence. The reassessment therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned revisional order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 372 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354951</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be exercised only by a prescribed authority that is specifically and expressly authorised by the Government or the Commissioner. Because the Deputy Commissioner who passed the reassessment order was not expressly named or designated in the authorisation relied on, the court treated the order as lacking competence. The reassessment therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned revisional order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>