<?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 478 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159020</link>
    <description>The Tribunal cannot decide a tax liability issue that did not arise from the assessment order or the first appellate order and was never part of the record below. Here, the lower authorities dealt only with tapioca simpliciter and its claimed exemption, while liability on tapioca chips was neither raised by the assessing authority nor argued before the appellate authority. Because the question of tapioca chips was outside the scope of the proceedings, the Tribunal travelled beyond the issues properly before it. The discussion on whether tapioca chips retained the character of tapioca could not cure that jurisdictional defect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:19:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 478 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159020</link>
      <description>The Tribunal cannot decide a tax liability issue that did not arise from the assessment order or the first appellate order and was never part of the record below. Here, the lower authorities dealt only with tapioca simpliciter and its claimed exemption, while liability on tapioca chips was neither raised by the assessing authority nor argued before the appellate authority. Because the question of tapioca chips was outside the scope of the proceedings, the Tribunal travelled beyond the issues properly before it. The discussion on whether tapioca chips retained the character of tapioca could not cure that jurisdictional defect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>