<?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>2002 (10) TMI 724 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109730</link>
    <description>State Government relief issued for rehabilitation of a sick industrial company was held to bind the Commercial Tax Department, because section 32(10)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 permits additional time, instalments, or stay of recovery on genuine hardship and was treated as wider than section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. Relief could extend to dues arising after the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction cut-off date. As the recovery and cancellation orders ignored the communication, they were unsustainable; the registration cancellation was quashed, the matter was remitted for reconsideration in line with the communication, and the petitioner was allowed to continue business pending fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:55:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 724 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109730</link>
      <description>State Government relief issued for rehabilitation of a sick industrial company was held to bind the Commercial Tax Department, because section 32(10)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 permits additional time, instalments, or stay of recovery on genuine hardship and was treated as wider than section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. Relief could extend to dues arising after the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction cut-off date. As the recovery and cancellation orders ignored the communication, they were unsustainable; the registration cancellation was quashed, the matter was remitted for reconsideration in line with the communication, and the petitioner was allowed to continue business pending fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>