<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1354 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161027</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act cannot be used to reopen a completed assessment where the alleged suppression was already examined in the original assessment and appeal. The department&#039;s reliance on disclosure of additional income in income-tax proceedings did not supply an independent basis for revision because the same inspection material had already been considered earlier. Revisional power requires both an erroneous order and prejudice to revenue; it is not enough that the revisional authority takes a different view or perceives revenue loss. On these facts, the statutory conditions for revision were not met and the revisional order was held invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:20:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1354 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161027</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act cannot be used to reopen a completed assessment where the alleged suppression was already examined in the original assessment and appeal. The department&#039;s reliance on disclosure of additional income in income-tax proceedings did not supply an independent basis for revision because the same inspection material had already been considered earlier. Revisional power requires both an erroneous order and prejudice to revenue; it is not enough that the revisional authority takes a different view or perceives revenue loss. On these facts, the statutory conditions for revision were not met and the revisional order was held invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>