<?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>2025 (10) TMI 593 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779797</link>
    <description>Under section 67, a subordinate officer cannot inspect a taxable person&#039;s premises unless the Joint Commissioner first records reasons to believe and issues written authorisation. The inspection power is therefore conditional on prior authorisation, and the statutory scheme was complied with on the facts. The taxable person need not be furnished with the authorisation order, the underlying reasons, or the confidential material supporting it, although the fact of authorisation must be intimated during inspection. The challenge to the inspection proceedings therefore failed because no legal infirmity was shown in the exercise of the inspection power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 13:59:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 593 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779797</link>
      <description>Under section 67, a subordinate officer cannot inspect a taxable person&#039;s premises unless the Joint Commissioner first records reasons to believe and issues written authorisation. The inspection power is therefore conditional on prior authorisation, and the statutory scheme was complied with on the facts. The taxable person need not be furnished with the authorisation order, the underlying reasons, or the confidential material supporting it, although the fact of authorisation must be intimated during inspection. The challenge to the inspection proceedings therefore failed because no legal infirmity was shown in the exercise of the inspection power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>