<?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>2008 (10) TMI 608 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163778</link>
    <description>Penalty proceedings under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act are independent of regular assessment proceedings and may be initiated by an officer authorised by notification, even while assessment is pending. The provision authorises the assessing authority to proceed for specified contraventions and places the burden of proof on the dealer; the proceedings are quasi-criminal, but pending assessment does not bar their commencement. Writ interference at the show-cause notice stage was unwarranted because tax disputes should ordinarily be pursued through statutory remedies unless the notice is shown to be without jurisdiction or contrary to statute. The Intelligence Officer was therefore competent to proceed, and the writ appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 608 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163778</link>
      <description>Penalty proceedings under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act are independent of regular assessment proceedings and may be initiated by an officer authorised by notification, even while assessment is pending. The provision authorises the assessing authority to proceed for specified contraventions and places the burden of proof on the dealer; the proceedings are quasi-criminal, but pending assessment does not bar their commencement. Writ interference at the show-cause notice stage was unwarranted because tax disputes should ordinarily be pursued through statutory remedies unless the notice is shown to be without jurisdiction or contrary to statute. The Intelligence Officer was therefore competent to proceed, and the writ appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>