https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272924 The court rejected the argument that revenue recovery proceedings and a notice of demand issued under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were without jurisdiction. The writ petition challenging these proceedings was dismissed, affirming their validity. The court emphasized that the compounding process under Section 7 of the Act does not create a binding contract until the final order is issued after assessment. The decision in Koothattukulam Liquors v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was distinguished as it pertained to arrack licensees, not cases under Section 7 of the Act. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2018 20:29:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272924 The court rejected the argument that revenue recovery proceedings and a notice of demand issued under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were without jurisdiction. The writ petition challenging these proceedings was dismissed, affirming their validity. The court emphasized that the compounding process under Section 7 of the Act does not create a binding contract until the final order is issued after assessment. The decision in Koothattukulam Liquors v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was distinguished as it pertained to arrack licensees, not cases under Section 7 of the Act. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272924