https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197995 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where the challenged orders were appealable and no exceptional illegality was shown. The Court noted that the revision application was not duly established as having been communicated before inspection; the relied-upon communication was only an unacknowledged e-mail. As the revision request was made after inspection and after recoveries, it appeared to anticipate proceedings under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. In these circumstances, the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:27:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197995 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where the challenged orders were appealable and no exceptional illegality was shown. The Court noted that the revision application was not duly established as having been communicated before inspection; the relied-upon communication was only an unacknowledged e-mail. As the revision request was made after inspection and after recoveries, it appeared to anticipate proceedings under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. In these circumstances, the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197995