<?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>2020 (12) TMI 948 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402149</link>
    <description>Where the statute permits a revised return before completion of self-assessment, the revised return substitutes the original return for assessment purposes and must be acted upon by the assessing authority. The rectification proviso further provides that an application not rejected within sixty days is deemed to have been allowed, with the order treated as amended to correct the mistake. Because the authority proceeded on the original return and rejected the rectification applications after the statutory period, the later rejection orders were without jurisdiction. The appellate authority and tribunal failed to give effect to this statutory consequence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:39:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 948 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402149</link>
      <description>Where the statute permits a revised return before completion of self-assessment, the revised return substitutes the original return for assessment purposes and must be acted upon by the assessing authority. The rectification proviso further provides that an application not rejected within sixty days is deemed to have been allowed, with the order treated as amended to correct the mistake. Because the authority proceeded on the original return and rejected the rectification applications after the statutory period, the later rejection orders were without jurisdiction. The appellate authority and tribunal failed to give effect to this statutory consequence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>