<?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>1979 (4) TMI 143 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152434</link>
    <description>The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 treats escaped turnover assessment under section 19 and revision under section 35 as distinct powers. Revisional jurisdiction is wide enough to correct illegal, irregular, or improper assessment orders and may be used to direct fresh consideration, even where the same subject matter could also fall within escaped turnover proceedings. The key limitation is that revision cannot be used to usurp an authority expressly assigned to another independent jurisdiction. The contrary view that section 35 and section 19 are mutually exclusive was rejected, and the revisional authority was held competent to interfere with the assessment order and order fresh disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:27:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (4) TMI 143 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152434</link>
      <description>The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 treats escaped turnover assessment under section 19 and revision under section 35 as distinct powers. Revisional jurisdiction is wide enough to correct illegal, irregular, or improper assessment orders and may be used to direct fresh consideration, even where the same subject matter could also fall within escaped turnover proceedings. The key limitation is that revision cannot be used to usurp an authority expressly assigned to another independent jurisdiction. The contrary view that section 35 and section 19 are mutually exclusive was rejected, and the revisional authority was held competent to interfere with the assessment order and order fresh disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>