<?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>2002 (10) TMI 757 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161560</link>
    <description>The Kerala High Court explained that revisional power under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 operates independently of reassessment under section 19. Section 35 is meant to correct illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under revision, and it is not excluded merely because the issue also involves escaped turnover. The limitation period applicable to reassessment under section 19 does not control supervisory revision under section 35, because each provision operates in a different field and is subject to its own time-limit and conditions. The challenge based on escaped turnover and limitation therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:17:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 757 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161560</link>
      <description>The Kerala High Court explained that revisional power under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 operates independently of reassessment under section 19. Section 35 is meant to correct illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under revision, and it is not excluded merely because the issue also involves escaped turnover. The limitation period applicable to reassessment under section 19 does not control supervisory revision under section 35, because each provision operates in a different field and is subject to its own time-limit and conditions. The challenge based on escaped turnover and limitation therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>