<?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>2018 (11) TMI 1438 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371095</link>
    <description>Proceedings under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act were treated as time-barred where the Department acted after an unexplained and prolonged delay from inspection and detection of the alleged offence. The Court noted that detection must be reasonably proximate to inspection, and that even after the statutory limitation was removed, action under Section 67 had to be completed within a reasonable period, taken by analogy as five years. Repeated summons and the assessee&#039;s alleged non-cooperation did not justify keeping the matter pending when the Department could proceed on materials already recovered. The impugned notice was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:54:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1438 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371095</link>
      <description>Proceedings under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act were treated as time-barred where the Department acted after an unexplained and prolonged delay from inspection and detection of the alleged offence. The Court noted that detection must be reasonably proximate to inspection, and that even after the statutory limitation was removed, action under Section 67 had to be completed within a reasonable period, taken by analogy as five years. Repeated summons and the assessee&#039;s alleged non-cooperation did not justify keeping the matter pending when the Department could proceed on materials already recovered. The impugned notice was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>