https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169022 A Kerala VAT reopening notice under Section 25(1) was found to need correction because the higher-rate turnover had been computed without excluding the amount already returned at that rate. The assessee was entitled to file objections and receive a personal hearing before assessment was completed, while the underlying classification dispute remained open for the assessing authority. On the works contract issue, estimation under Rule 10(2)(a) was directed to be reconsidered afresh by the appellate authority on the assessee's material, with the court treating the individual-contract basis as prima facie relevant. Recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:06:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169022 A Kerala VAT reopening notice under Section 25(1) was found to need correction because the higher-rate turnover had been computed without excluding the amount already returned at that rate. The assessee was entitled to file objections and receive a personal hearing before assessment was completed, while the underlying classification dispute remained open for the assessing authority. On the works contract issue, estimation under Rule 10(2)(a) was directed to be reconsidered afresh by the appellate authority on the assessee's material, with the court treating the individual-contract basis as prima facie relevant. Recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169022