<?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>2025 (3) TMI 424 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767038</link>
    <description>Prior permission for reassessment under the Punjab VAT Act was treated as a purely administrative approval, not a quasi-judicial determination requiring a pre-decisional hearing. The statutory scheme contemplated that the designated officer would seek the Commissioner&#039;s approval first and then give the dealer an opportunity of hearing at the assessment-amendment stage. In light of the statutory language and the earlier decision upholding the provision, the absence of a prior personal hearing before the Commissioner did not invalidate the sanction. The challenge to the permission order therefore failed, and the Tribunal was correct to confine its review to the validity of that approval.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:42:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 424 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767038</link>
      <description>Prior permission for reassessment under the Punjab VAT Act was treated as a purely administrative approval, not a quasi-judicial determination requiring a pre-decisional hearing. The statutory scheme contemplated that the designated officer would seek the Commissioner&#039;s approval first and then give the dealer an opportunity of hearing at the assessment-amendment stage. In light of the statutory language and the earlier decision upholding the provision, the absence of a prior personal hearing before the Commissioner did not invalidate the sanction. The challenge to the permission order therefore failed, and the Tribunal was correct to confine its review to the validity of that approval.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>