https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369561 A writ challenge to a KVAT re-assessment order for 2012-13 was found not maintainable where a statutory appeal was available under the KVAT Act, so the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy. The taxable event was the individual sale or purchase transaction, and the law in force on the date of that event governed the levy. On that basis, the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, Article 246-A and the 101st Constitutional Amendment had no bearing on the assessment period. Section 174 of the KGST Act was treated as a saving provision preserving liabilities and orders under the repealed KVAT regime, making the broader constitutional challenge academic on the facts. en-us Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369561 A writ challenge to a KVAT re-assessment order for 2012-13 was found not maintainable where a statutory appeal was available under the KVAT Act, so the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy. The taxable event was the individual sale or purchase transaction, and the law in force on the date of that event governed the levy. On that basis, the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, Article 246-A and the 101st Constitutional Amendment had no bearing on the assessment period. Section 174 of the KGST Act was treated as a saving provision preserving liabilities and orders under the repealed KVAT regime, making the broader constitutional challenge academic on the facts. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369561