<?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>2009 (10) TMI 838 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164390</link>
    <description>Cancellation of registration under the KVAT regime cannot rest merely on dishonour of cheques where the statute provides a specific procedure for cheque default; such dishonour is not by itself a good and sufficient reason for cancellation under section 16(10) or an analogous omission under rule 17(18)(vii). The cancellation orders were also invalid because the notices did not disclose the material allegations ultimately relied on, the objections were not considered on merits, and the authority acted mechanically without independent application of mind. The orders were therefore quashed, though fresh proceedings could be taken on valid grounds after proper notice and opportunity of defence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 838 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164390</link>
      <description>Cancellation of registration under the KVAT regime cannot rest merely on dishonour of cheques where the statute provides a specific procedure for cheque default; such dishonour is not by itself a good and sufficient reason for cancellation under section 16(10) or an analogous omission under rule 17(18)(vii). The cancellation orders were also invalid because the notices did not disclose the material allegations ultimately relied on, the objections were not considered on merits, and the authority acted mechanically without independent application of mind. The orders were therefore quashed, though fresh proceedings could be taken on valid grounds after proper notice and opportunity of defence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>