https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164601 A writ petition under Article 226 could not reopen an interest demand consequential to a tax assessment that had already attained finality through statutory revision, and the court treated the challenge as an abuse of process. The liability to pay interest on unpaid trade tax was a statutory liability linked to the concluded assessment proceedings, so the demand notice was not independently assailable. The petitioner also failed to show eligibility for interest waiver under the Government Order dated 22 March 2003 because the scheme applied only to dealers with outstanding dues as on 31 March 2002, which the petitioner did not have. The writ petition therefore failed on maintainability and on merits. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164601 A writ petition under Article 226 could not reopen an interest demand consequential to a tax assessment that had already attained finality through statutory revision, and the court treated the challenge as an abuse of process. The liability to pay interest on unpaid trade tax was a statutory liability linked to the concluded assessment proceedings, so the demand notice was not independently assailable. The petitioner also failed to show eligibility for interest waiver under the Government Order dated 22 March 2003 because the scheme applied only to dealers with outstanding dues as on 31 March 2002, which the petitioner did not have. The writ petition therefore failed on maintainability and on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164601