<?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>2009 (3) TMI 1097 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306695</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative appellate remedy where the challenge goes to the revisional authority&#039;s jurisdiction itself, because the alternative-remedy rule is discretionary rather than absolute. Suo motu revision can be exercised only when the reassessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; it cannot be based mechanically on the same audit objections after those objections have already been examined and rejected on merits. Where the reassessment authority has applied its mind, accepted the dealer&#039;s explanation, and given reasons, a revisional order founded on borrowed or dictated reasoning without independent enquiry is impermissible. The reassessment orders were therefore protected from revisional interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:57:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 1097 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306695</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative appellate remedy where the challenge goes to the revisional authority&#039;s jurisdiction itself, because the alternative-remedy rule is discretionary rather than absolute. Suo motu revision can be exercised only when the reassessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; it cannot be based mechanically on the same audit objections after those objections have already been examined and rejected on merits. Where the reassessment authority has applied its mind, accepted the dealer&#039;s explanation, and given reasons, a revisional order founded on borrowed or dictated reasoning without independent enquiry is impermissible. The reassessment orders were therefore protected from revisional interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>