https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375850 Proceedings initiated by a successor Intelligence Officer were not vitiated merely because a predecessor had earlier dealt with the matter and had not passed a final closure order. Mere inaction by the earlier officer did not amount to final satisfaction on merits, and the successor could continue the adjudicatory process from the stage left by the predecessor; notice by the successor satisfied the statutory requirement under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The challenge to the penalty proceedings was also not fit for writ interference because an efficacious statutory appeal was available, so the petitioner was relegated to that remedy. en-us Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:55:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375850 Proceedings initiated by a successor Intelligence Officer were not vitiated merely because a predecessor had earlier dealt with the matter and had not passed a final closure order. Mere inaction by the earlier officer did not amount to final satisfaction on merits, and the successor could continue the adjudicatory process from the stage left by the predecessor; notice by the successor satisfied the statutory requirement under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The challenge to the penalty proceedings was also not fit for writ interference because an efficacious statutory appeal was available, so the petitioner was relegated to that remedy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375850