<?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>1987 (11) TMI 357 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155439</link>
    <description>Sections 35 and 36 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act confer wide revisional power intended to remedy injustice and protect both the Revenue and the assessee. An assessee may draw the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s attention to an error, illegality, or impropriety in a subordinate assessment, and the application cannot be rejected merely because the power is not being exercised suo motu. The jurisdiction may be invoked to correct an improper or illegal order, subject to statutory limits and the requirement of hearing before any adverse order is made. The Deputy Commissioner was therefore bound to consider the revision on merits, and the refusal to do so was erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 14:29:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 357 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155439</link>
      <description>Sections 35 and 36 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act confer wide revisional power intended to remedy injustice and protect both the Revenue and the assessee. An assessee may draw the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s attention to an error, illegality, or impropriety in a subordinate assessment, and the application cannot be rejected merely because the power is not being exercised suo motu. The jurisdiction may be invoked to correct an improper or illegal order, subject to statutory limits and the requirement of hearing before any adverse order is made. The Deputy Commissioner was therefore bound to consider the revision on merits, and the refusal to do so was erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>