<?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>1964 (4) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128861</link>
    <description>Where a special sales tax provision itself fixed the taxable point for cotton yarn and conferred no power to notify the rate, notifications purporting to fix tax at two naye paise per rupee were unauthorised and ineffective under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and could not be supported by the general levy or by importing the rate-setting mechanism from another provision in conflict with the Central Sales Tax Act ceiling. Despite that illegality, certiorari was refused because an adequate appellate remedy was available, the petitioners had not pursued it, and the Court declined to exercise writ discretion in light of delay and the absence of manifest jurisdictional error.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:20:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128861</link>
      <description>Where a special sales tax provision itself fixed the taxable point for cotton yarn and conferred no power to notify the rate, notifications purporting to fix tax at two naye paise per rupee were unauthorised and ineffective under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and could not be supported by the general levy or by importing the rate-setting mechanism from another provision in conflict with the Central Sales Tax Act ceiling. Despite that illegality, certiorari was refused because an adequate appellate remedy was available, the petitioners had not pursued it, and the Court declined to exercise writ discretion in light of delay and the absence of manifest jurisdictional error.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>