<?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>1996 (4) TMI 453 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158277</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was invalid because the reopening notice did not disclose a real basis for alleging escapement of tax and did not give a meaningful opportunity to object. The notice only suggested that the concessional rate &quot;would appear to be not correct&quot;, while the later justification relied on in reassessment was absent from the notice itself. The court held that the statutory condition precedent for reopening was not met, so the reassessment proceedings were vitiated from inception and could not stand. The challenge to the reopening succeeded, and the entire reassessment was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:05:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=332836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 453 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158277</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was invalid because the reopening notice did not disclose a real basis for alleging escapement of tax and did not give a meaningful opportunity to object. The notice only suggested that the concessional rate &quot;would appear to be not correct&quot;, while the later justification relied on in reassessment was absent from the notice itself. The court held that the statutory condition precedent for reopening was not met, so the reassessment proceedings were vitiated from inception and could not stand. The challenge to the reopening succeeded, and the entire reassessment was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>