https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343258 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because the reassessment challenge involved disputed factual questions on the nature of the contract, transfer of property in goods, and deductions or exemptions, all of which could be examined in the statutory appeal under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. The Court found no allegation of vires, jurisdictional defect, or fundamental procedural illegality, and noted that the assessee had already participated in the assessment proceedings and sought rectification. The existence of an efficacious appellate remedy therefore weighed against writ interference, and the petitions were dismissed. en-us Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 May 2017 07:26:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343258 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because the reassessment challenge involved disputed factual questions on the nature of the contract, transfer of property in goods, and deductions or exemptions, all of which could be examined in the statutory appeal under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. The Court found no allegation of vires, jurisdictional defect, or fundamental procedural illegality, and noted that the assessee had already participated in the assessment proceedings and sought rectification. The existence of an efficacious appellate remedy therefore weighed against writ interference, and the petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343258