https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332302 Disputed questions of fact, including whether the petitioner was a dealer and whether the turnover could be attributed to it, were held unsuitable for writ adjudication under Article 226 and were left to the statutory appeal. The limitation objection under Section 25(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was also treated as a factual issue requiring determination in appellate proceedings. The belated extension order was considered irrelevant in light of the governing limitation principle. The writ petition was therefore not examined on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with liberty to raise all contentions there and participate in the assessment process. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:39:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332302 Disputed questions of fact, including whether the petitioner was a dealer and whether the turnover could be attributed to it, were held unsuitable for writ adjudication under Article 226 and were left to the statutory appeal. The limitation objection under Section 25(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was also treated as a factual issue requiring determination in appellate proceedings. The belated extension order was considered irrelevant in light of the governing limitation principle. The writ petition was therefore not examined on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with liberty to raise all contentions there and participate in the assessment process. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332302