https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389340 A Haryana VAT assessee engaged in road and bridge construction opted for the lump sum scheme under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and its assessment for 2008-2009 was initially framed at nil demand. The Revisional Authority later exercised revisionary powers under Section 34(2), set aside that assessment, and raised tax and interest demand. The assessee challenged the revisional order before the Tax Tribunal on issues including limitation, service of notice or order, and whether revision was triggered by an audit objection. In the High Court, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal, and the matter was dismissed as withdrawn. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Dec 2019 11:50:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389340 A Haryana VAT assessee engaged in road and bridge construction opted for the lump sum scheme under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and its assessment for 2008-2009 was initially framed at nil demand. The Revisional Authority later exercised revisionary powers under Section 34(2), set aside that assessment, and raised tax and interest demand. The assessee challenged the revisional order before the Tax Tribunal on issues including limitation, service of notice or order, and whether revision was triggered by an audit objection. In the High Court, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal, and the matter was dismissed as withdrawn. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 02 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389340