<?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>1994 (1) TMI 254 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157496</link>
    <description>Revenue recovery for alleged sales tax arrears was kept in abeyance because the petitioner&#039;s representation disputing liability and asserting retirement from the firm was still pending before the assessing authority. The assessing authority was identified as the competent authority to examine that factual dispute in the first instance, and the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before any decision. Pending that determination, further representations to the District Collector were treated as having no practical effect. The representation was directed to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, before recovery could proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:19:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 254 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157496</link>
      <description>Revenue recovery for alleged sales tax arrears was kept in abeyance because the petitioner&#039;s representation disputing liability and asserting retirement from the firm was still pending before the assessing authority. The assessing authority was identified as the competent authority to examine that factual dispute in the first instance, and the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before any decision. Pending that determination, further representations to the District Collector were treated as having no practical effect. The representation was directed to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, before recovery could proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>