<?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>2019 (5) TMI 118 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379390</link>
    <description>Denial of a reasonable opportunity to produce supporting documents in reassessment can amount to breach of natural justice and render the assessment and demand vulnerable to writ interference. The assessee had sought time to place material on other-State turnover, non-vatable revenue, e-Sugam particulars and export sales, but the request was refused on limitation grounds despite a longer statutory period for completion of assessment. The Court held that this resulted in a high-pitched assessment, quashed the reassessment order and demand notice, and remitted the matter for de novo consideration after granting a fair hearing. Availability of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because the challenge was to procedural unfairness in the reassessment process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 14:06:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 118 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379390</link>
      <description>Denial of a reasonable opportunity to produce supporting documents in reassessment can amount to breach of natural justice and render the assessment and demand vulnerable to writ interference. The assessee had sought time to place material on other-State turnover, non-vatable revenue, e-Sugam particulars and export sales, but the request was refused on limitation grounds despite a longer statutory period for completion of assessment. The Court held that this resulted in a high-pitched assessment, quashed the reassessment order and demand notice, and remitted the matter for de novo consideration after granting a fair hearing. Availability of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because the challenge was to procedural unfairness in the reassessment process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>