<?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>1966 (1) TMI 63 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143067</link>
    <description>In recovery proceedings for sales tax arrears, forwarding a copy of the requisition to the dealer under section 26(1) was held not to be a condition precedent to the validity of a garnishee notice. The provision was treated as part of the recovery machinery, authorising a written requisition to persons holding monies due to the assessee so that the amounts may be paid towards arrears. The challenge based on non-service of the requisition copy therefore failed, and the notice was not invalidated on that ground. The Court also noted that setting aside the notice would have afforded no practical relief because the amount had already been paid to the department under the requisition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:15:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (1) TMI 63 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143067</link>
      <description>In recovery proceedings for sales tax arrears, forwarding a copy of the requisition to the dealer under section 26(1) was held not to be a condition precedent to the validity of a garnishee notice. The provision was treated as part of the recovery machinery, authorising a written requisition to persons holding monies due to the assessee so that the amounts may be paid towards arrears. The challenge based on non-service of the requisition copy therefore failed, and the notice was not invalidated on that ground. The Court also noted that setting aside the notice would have afforded no practical relief because the amount had already been paid to the department under the requisition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>