<?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>1958 (4) TMI 105 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127888</link>
    <description>An amendment imposing prepayment of the full assessed tax could not defeat a revision right arising from assessment proceedings already commenced under the unamended law. The majority treated the dealer&#039;s ability to move revision under section 12(2) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, as part of the existing remedial framework attached to the assessment, and held that a later proviso creating a new condition precedent could not apply unless retrospective intent was clearly expressed or necessarily implied. The revision petition therefore remained governed by the unamended provision, and prepayment could not be insisted upon.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:48:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (4) TMI 105 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127888</link>
      <description>An amendment imposing prepayment of the full assessed tax could not defeat a revision right arising from assessment proceedings already commenced under the unamended law. The majority treated the dealer&#039;s ability to move revision under section 12(2) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, as part of the existing remedial framework attached to the assessment, and held that a later proviso creating a new condition precedent could not apply unless retrospective intent was clearly expressed or necessarily implied. The revision petition therefore remained governed by the unamended provision, and prepayment could not be insisted upon.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>