https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327905 In VAT reassessment disputes, the Madras High Court held that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked where an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists, especially when the controversy depends on disputed facts. It found no violation of natural justice because the assessee had been given repeated notices, opportunities to produce records, and a personal hearing. The Court also declined to interfere with reversal of input tax credit and levy of penalty, as the assessment was supported by findings of purchases from cancelled or non-genuine dealers, bill trading, invoice mismatch, and absence of proof of actual movement of goods. The assessment orders were upheld, leaving the assessee to pursue the appellate remedy. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327905 In VAT reassessment disputes, the Madras High Court held that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked where an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists, especially when the controversy depends on disputed facts. It found no violation of natural justice because the assessee had been given repeated notices, opportunities to produce records, and a personal hearing. The Court also declined to interfere with reversal of input tax credit and levy of penalty, as the assessment was supported by findings of purchases from cancelled or non-genuine dealers, bill trading, invoice mismatch, and absence of proof of actual movement of goods. The assessment orders were upheld, leaving the assessee to pursue the appellate remedy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327905