<?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>2022 (9) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427675</link>
    <description>The Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021 was construed as giving a separate 100% waiver of penalty and interest for assessments or reassessments completed on or before the cut-off date under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Clause 3 was treated as a distinct, additional category limited to the penalties specifically listed there, and could not be used to narrow relief available under Clause 2. The absence of tax arrears did not bar the claim where only penalty arrears arose from completed reassessment orders, and Clause 5.1 was held not to defeat the waiver request. The rejection of the application was unsustainable, and the impugned endorsements were quashed with directions to grant the penalty waiver.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 07:49:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427675</link>
      <description>The Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021 was construed as giving a separate 100% waiver of penalty and interest for assessments or reassessments completed on or before the cut-off date under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Clause 3 was treated as a distinct, additional category limited to the penalties specifically listed there, and could not be used to narrow relief available under Clause 2. The absence of tax arrears did not bar the claim where only penalty arrears arose from completed reassessment orders, and Clause 5.1 was held not to defeat the waiver request. The rejection of the application was unsustainable, and the impugned endorsements were quashed with directions to grant the penalty waiver.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>