<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1247 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392803</link>
    <description>A non-speaking assessment order that ignored the assessee&#039;s submissions and relevant circulars could not be sustained, because such failure showed non-application of mind and attracted the natural justice exception to the alternative remedy rule, so writ jurisdiction remained available. On classification, tablet computers with calling facility were treated as portable automatic data processing machines whose principal function was data processing; the calling feature was incidental. Because the State notification incorporated tariff headings from the Central Excise Tariff and HSN scheme, the specific classification under sub-heading 8471 30 prevailed over the residuary entry, and the assessment was quashed with a fresh assessment directed on the correct classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:37:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1247 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392803</link>
      <description>A non-speaking assessment order that ignored the assessee&#039;s submissions and relevant circulars could not be sustained, because such failure showed non-application of mind and attracted the natural justice exception to the alternative remedy rule, so writ jurisdiction remained available. On classification, tablet computers with calling facility were treated as portable automatic data processing machines whose principal function was data processing; the calling feature was incidental. Because the State notification incorporated tariff headings from the Central Excise Tariff and HSN scheme, the specific classification under sub-heading 8471 30 prevailed over the residuary entry, and the assessment was quashed with a fresh assessment directed on the correct classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>