<?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>2023 (3) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434619</link>
    <description>Reassessment notices issued under Section 12-A were time-barred because the outer limit of eight years from the expiry of the relevant year had already passed. The proviso to Section 12-A(2) did not save the proceedings, as exclusion of limitation applies only where reassessment is made on the assessee or a person intimately connected with earlier proceedings in consequence of a finding, direction, order, or judgment; a Supreme Court ruling in another case did not extend limitation for a stranger to those proceedings, and the interim order in that matter did not justify excluding the intervening period. The reassessment orders and consequential demand notices were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434619</link>
      <description>Reassessment notices issued under Section 12-A were time-barred because the outer limit of eight years from the expiry of the relevant year had already passed. The proviso to Section 12-A(2) did not save the proceedings, as exclusion of limitation applies only where reassessment is made on the assessee or a person intimately connected with earlier proceedings in consequence of a finding, direction, order, or judgment; a Supreme Court ruling in another case did not extend limitation for a stranger to those proceedings, and the interim order in that matter did not justify excluding the intervening period. The reassessment orders and consequential demand notices were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>