https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221780 A writ challenge to a VAT notice was found premature because the notice only called for objections with supporting documents, and the petitioner had not used that opportunity. The Madras HC noted that the definition of "assessing authority" under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 permits an officer authorised by the Government or the Commissioner to act, and the notice on its face showed the first respondent as such an authorised officer. The threshold challenge to the officer's authority was therefore rejected, and the petitioner was directed to submit objections before the competent authority for consideration on merits. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221780 A writ challenge to a VAT notice was found premature because the notice only called for objections with supporting documents, and the petitioner had not used that opportunity. The Madras HC noted that the definition of "assessing authority" under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 permits an officer authorised by the Government or the Commissioner to act, and the notice on its face showed the first respondent as such an authorised officer. The threshold challenge to the officer's authority was therefore rejected, and the petitioner was directed to submit objections before the competent authority for consideration on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221780