<?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 (9) TMI 1002 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412657</link>
    <description>A reassessment order was found procedurally unfair because the notice was returned unserved and no effective intimation or hearing was afforded before the order was made, amounting to a breach of natural justice. On that defect, objections based on the availability of an appellate remedy and on delay and laches were rejected, particularly where the petitioner claimed no knowledge of the proceedings until recovery action began. The reassessment order and the consequential endorsement were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the authority for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a sufficient opportunity to respond.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:07:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1002 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412657</link>
      <description>A reassessment order was found procedurally unfair because the notice was returned unserved and no effective intimation or hearing was afforded before the order was made, amounting to a breach of natural justice. On that defect, objections based on the availability of an appellate remedy and on delay and laches were rejected, particularly where the petitioner claimed no knowledge of the proceedings until recovery action began. The reassessment order and the consequential endorsement were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the authority for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a sufficient opportunity to respond.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>