<?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>2015 (4) TMI 124 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258242</link>
    <description>The Kerala HC held that suo motu revisional power under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act could be used only in relation to the original assessment, and under sub-section (2A) only for points not decided in appeal or revision. It could not be exercised to disturb consequential assessment orders passed to implement an appellate order that had merged with the original assessment and had attained finality. Allowing such revision would amount to an indirect challenge to the final appellate order, which was impermissible. The existence of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar the writ petition because the authority acted in excess of jurisdiction. The impugned orders and notice were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:57:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 124 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258242</link>
      <description>The Kerala HC held that suo motu revisional power under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act could be used only in relation to the original assessment, and under sub-section (2A) only for points not decided in appeal or revision. It could not be exercised to disturb consequential assessment orders passed to implement an appellate order that had merged with the original assessment and had attained finality. Allowing such revision would amount to an indirect challenge to the final appellate order, which was impermissible. The existence of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar the writ petition because the authority acted in excess of jurisdiction. The impugned orders and notice were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>