<?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>2022 (11) TMI 1272 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430848</link>
    <description>The Kerala Value Added Tax amendment extending the reassessment notice period from five years to six years with effect from 01.04.2017 applied to notices issued within the enlarged period, even where the earlier five-year period had already expired. The court held that dealers acquired no vested or accrued right to resist reassessment merely because the pre-amendment limitation would otherwise have run out, and rejected the argument that the amendment operated only prospectively to preserve the earlier bar. The reassessment notices were therefore valid and within jurisdiction, the challenge failed, and the revenue appeals succeeded, leaving the respondents to pursue statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 05:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=697211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1272 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430848</link>
      <description>The Kerala Value Added Tax amendment extending the reassessment notice period from five years to six years with effect from 01.04.2017 applied to notices issued within the enlarged period, even where the earlier five-year period had already expired. The court held that dealers acquired no vested or accrued right to resist reassessment merely because the pre-amendment limitation would otherwise have run out, and rejected the argument that the amendment operated only prospectively to preserve the earlier bar. The reassessment notices were therefore valid and within jurisdiction, the challenge failed, and the revenue appeals succeeded, leaving the respondents to pursue statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>