<?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>2006 (7) TMI 593 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162515</link>
    <description>Article 226 writ jurisdiction was held not to be an ordinary route for challenging assessment orders after expiry of the statutory appeal period under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Because an effective appellate remedy with a 30-day limitation was available, a belated writ would bypass the statutory limitation scheme and the normal appellate process. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the denial of exemption was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:26:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 593 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162515</link>
      <description>Article 226 writ jurisdiction was held not to be an ordinary route for challenging assessment orders after expiry of the statutory appeal period under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Because an effective appellate remedy with a 30-day limitation was available, a belated writ would bypass the statutory limitation scheme and the normal appellate process. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the denial of exemption was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>