https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157840 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not used to resolve disputed factual questions requiring scientific and technical appreciation, especially where the assessee has already pursued a statutory appellate or revisional remedy. The revisional authority should not reject a revision on a mere procedural defect without first giving an opportunity to cure it and then hearing the assessee on merits. The revisional order was therefore quashed and the matter remitted for fresh disposal after rectification of defects, while the penalty imposed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable legal guidelines. en-us Mon, 22 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:29:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157840 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not used to resolve disputed factual questions requiring scientific and technical appreciation, especially where the assessee has already pursued a statutory appellate or revisional remedy. The revisional authority should not reject a revision on a mere procedural defect without first giving an opportunity to cure it and then hearing the assessee on merits. The revisional order was therefore quashed and the matter remitted for fresh disposal after rectification of defects, while the penalty imposed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable legal guidelines. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 22 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157840