<?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>2014 (7) TMI 886 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249850</link>
    <description>In proceedings under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the right to be heard is confined to the registered owner of the vehicle or the owner of the consignment. A financier with only an indirect financial interest is not a person entitled to notice or hearing, so the absence of such hearing does not vitiate the adjudication or appellate orders. The challenge based on breach of natural justice therefore failed, and no relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 886 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249850</link>
      <description>In proceedings under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the right to be heard is confined to the registered owner of the vehicle or the owner of the consignment. A financier with only an indirect financial interest is not a person entitled to notice or hearing, so the absence of such hearing does not vitiate the adjudication or appellate orders. The challenge based on breach of natural justice therefore failed, and no relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>