<?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 (2) TMI 1980 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470364</link>
    <description>Post-inspection uploading of e-sugam does not cure statutory non-compliance where relief is based on a notification that had been superseded by later notifications. The notes state that reliance on a non-operative notification constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. As penalty for the statutory breach is mandatory, post-inspection compliance does not justify deletion of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:47:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1980 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470364</link>
      <description>Post-inspection uploading of e-sugam does not cure statutory non-compliance where relief is based on a notification that had been superseded by later notifications. The notes state that reliance on a non-operative notification constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. As penalty for the statutory breach is mandatory, post-inspection compliance does not justify deletion of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>