<?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 (12) TMI 87 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782547</link>
    <description>The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternate statutory remedy because the dispute turned on pure questions of law arising from admitted facts. In the absence of an express limitation period for cancellation of compounding permission, a reasonable period was read into the statute, and proceedings initiated after five years were treated as time-barred. The later amendment dealing with suppressed turnover of gold applied to pending proceedings and prevented cancellation of the compounding option, requiring only assessment of the suppressed turnover at the scheduled rate. Cancellation based on suppression alleged in the same assessment year was also held impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 87 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782547</link>
      <description>The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternate statutory remedy because the dispute turned on pure questions of law arising from admitted facts. In the absence of an express limitation period for cancellation of compounding permission, a reasonable period was read into the statute, and proceedings initiated after five years were treated as time-barred. The later amendment dealing with suppressed turnover of gold applied to pending proceedings and prevented cancellation of the compounding option, requiring only assessment of the suppressed turnover at the scheduled rate. Cancellation based on suppression alleged in the same assessment year was also held impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>