<?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>2021 (1) TMI 245 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402653</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 12-A(1-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable where there was no material to show that agreements with prospective buyers had been executed before commencement of construction. The record before the assessing authority, first appellate authority and tribunal did not establish any such pre-construction agreements, and the legal position during the relevant assessment years was not clear. The omission to disclose turnover was treated as arising from a bona fide belief based on the then prevailing understanding of the law, so the penal provision could not be invoked. The penalty was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 245 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402653</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 12-A(1-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable where there was no material to show that agreements with prospective buyers had been executed before commencement of construction. The record before the assessing authority, first appellate authority and tribunal did not establish any such pre-construction agreements, and the legal position during the relevant assessment years was not clear. The omission to disclose turnover was treated as arising from a bona fide belief based on the then prevailing understanding of the law, so the penal provision could not be invoked. The penalty was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>