<?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>2026 (9) TMI 1097 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799071</link>
    <description>Separation of audit and adjudication functions under the Karnataka GST framework requires that an officer conducting an audit under Section 65 should not also determine tax liability under Section 73(9). Where the same officer performed both roles, the adjudication order was quashed. Fresh adjudication must be undertaken by a different proper officer after allowing a further reply and providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 08:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=923413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1097 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799071</link>
      <description>Separation of audit and adjudication functions under the Karnataka GST framework requires that an officer conducting an audit under Section 65 should not also determine tax liability under Section 73(9). Where the same officer performed both roles, the adjudication order was quashed. Fresh adjudication must be undertaken by a different proper officer after allowing a further reply and providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>