TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's challenge to the notice proposing cancellation of permission for compounding under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 should be decided by the writ court or by the assessing authority in the first instance.
Analysis: The dispute arose from a notice proposing withdrawal of compounding permission on the ground that the underlying transaction was allegedly only for supply of red earth and not a works contract. The order did not finally decide the legality of the proposed cancellation. Instead, it noted that the sustainability of the proposal had to be examined first by the 1st respondent after considering the petitioner's objections and granting a personal hearing.
Conclusion: The writ court declined to decide the merits and left the objection to be decided by the authority concerned after hearing the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
