<?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 (8) TMI 1479 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275494</link>
    <description>Omission of a subordinate rule does not extinguish liabilities accrued while the rule was in force, so recovery for short-lifting under Rule 14(2) remained enforceable for the relevant past periods. The levy was treated as a compensatory fiscal charge or liquidated damages, not a penal consequence requiring prosecution-style safeguards, and the later deletion of the rule did not remove the authority&#039;s power to quantify and recover the amount. A challenge based on prior hearing and arbitrariness also failed: the uniform rate per bulk litre was treated as a legislative measure, while objections were left open only on arithmetical computation of the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:33:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1479 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275494</link>
      <description>Omission of a subordinate rule does not extinguish liabilities accrued while the rule was in force, so recovery for short-lifting under Rule 14(2) remained enforceable for the relevant past periods. The levy was treated as a compensatory fiscal charge or liquidated damages, not a penal consequence requiring prosecution-style safeguards, and the later deletion of the rule did not remove the authority&#039;s power to quantify and recover the amount. A challenge based on prior hearing and arbitrariness also failed: the uniform rate per bulk litre was treated as a legislative measure, while objections were left open only on arithmetical computation of the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>