https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753881 A taxpayer who had accepted the notice, filed a written admission of liability, paid the compounding fee and tax dues, and showed no contemporaneous protest could not later avoid the compounding proceedings by alleging duress or want of jurisdiction. The Karnataka HC held that the record disclosed voluntary participation in the statutory compounding scheme, and once compounding was effected the matter stood closed. It further noted that no demonstrated ground for interference under Article 226 was shown, especially where an alternative statutory remedy was available. The writ petition was dismissed and quashing was refused. en-us Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:08:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753881 A taxpayer who had accepted the notice, filed a written admission of liability, paid the compounding fee and tax dues, and showed no contemporaneous protest could not later avoid the compounding proceedings by alleging duress or want of jurisdiction. The Karnataka HC held that the record disclosed voluntary participation in the statutory compounding scheme, and once compounding was effected the matter stood closed. It further noted that no demonstrated ground for interference under Article 226 was shown, especially where an alternative statutory remedy was available. The writ petition was dismissed and quashing was refused. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753881