https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393982 A pure objection that an authority lacked inherent jurisdiction may still be raised despite non-contestation, because jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. However, where a taxpayer opts for compounding of an offence, factual disputes about the underlying allegations are foreclosed and the composition order cannot later be reopened on merits. Here, the detention notice concerned not only alleged storage issues but also failure to produce documents showing compliance with VAT requirements for transport and delivery of taxable goods, so the dispute involved matters that could have been contested before compounding. The revisional challenge therefore failed and no interference with the order was warranted. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:51:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393982 A pure objection that an authority lacked inherent jurisdiction may still be raised despite non-contestation, because jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. However, where a taxpayer opts for compounding of an offence, factual disputes about the underlying allegations are foreclosed and the composition order cannot later be reopened on merits. Here, the detention notice concerned not only alleged storage issues but also failure to produce documents showing compliance with VAT requirements for transport and delivery of taxable goods, so the dispute involved matters that could have been contested before compounding. The revisional challenge therefore failed and no interference with the order was warranted. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393982