<?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>2021 (4) TMI 1279 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299446</link>
    <description>Once a rectification application has been disposed of by passing a rectified assessment order, a further rectification request on the same assessment is not the proper course. The appropriate remedy for dissatisfaction with the rectified order is to pursue the statutory appeal process. On that basis, the court declined to direct time-bound disposal of the second rectification application and left the petitioner to the appellate remedy available under the statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:25:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 1279 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299446</link>
      <description>Once a rectification application has been disposed of by passing a rectified assessment order, a further rectification request on the same assessment is not the proper course. The appropriate remedy for dissatisfaction with the rectified order is to pursue the statutory appeal process. On that basis, the court declined to direct time-bound disposal of the second rectification application and left the petitioner to the appellate remedy available under the statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>