<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1188 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191273</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to an assessment order on the ground of natural justice failed because an opportunity to defend had already been granted, and the question of prejudice was not one for examination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court held that factual and merits-based objections could be pursued before the competent appellate authority, so interference with the assessment order was declined and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:49:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1188 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191273</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to an assessment order on the ground of natural justice failed because an opportunity to defend had already been granted, and the question of prejudice was not one for examination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court held that factual and merits-based objections could be pursued before the competent appellate authority, so interference with the assessment order was declined and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>