<?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 (10) TMI 146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368180</link>
    <description>A concessional VAT notification under section 4(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applied to the assessee&#039;s sale of used motor vehicles, reducing tax to five per cent of the difference between the sale value and purchase price where the prescribed conditions were satisfied. The record showed that those conditions were met and the Revenue did not dispute compliance. The assessing authority nevertheless raised reassessment demands, including purchase tax and denial of input tax credit, without addressing the notification or explaining why it did not govern the transactions. The High Court treated this as arbitrary and legally unsustainable, and quashed the reassessment order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2019 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368180</link>
      <description>A concessional VAT notification under section 4(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applied to the assessee&#039;s sale of used motor vehicles, reducing tax to five per cent of the difference between the sale value and purchase price where the prescribed conditions were satisfied. The record showed that those conditions were met and the Revenue did not dispute compliance. The assessing authority nevertheless raised reassessment demands, including purchase tax and denial of input tax credit, without addressing the notification or explaining why it did not govern the transactions. The High Court treated this as arbitrary and legally unsustainable, and quashed the reassessment order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>