https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356455 Under the KVAT Act, the High Court declined to decide in writ jurisdiction the classification dispute between agricultural sprayers taxed at 5% and manually operated agricultural implements exempted from tax. It held that the petitioner had efficacious statutory remedies, including a first appeal under Section 62, a second appeal under Section 63, and a request for departmental clarification under Section 59(4). The Court emphasised that Section 59(4) is intended to secure uniformity in assessment and collection, and that the Commissioner may issue clarifications even after assessment or re-assessment. The petitioner was therefore directed to pursue the statutory remedies or seek clarification from the Commissioner for uniform treatment. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:59:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356455 Under the KVAT Act, the High Court declined to decide in writ jurisdiction the classification dispute between agricultural sprayers taxed at 5% and manually operated agricultural implements exempted from tax. It held that the petitioner had efficacious statutory remedies, including a first appeal under Section 62, a second appeal under Section 63, and a request for departmental clarification under Section 59(4). The Court emphasised that Section 59(4) is intended to secure uniformity in assessment and collection, and that the Commissioner may issue clarifications even after assessment or re-assessment. The petitioner was therefore directed to pursue the statutory remedies or seek clarification from the Commissioner for uniform treatment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356455