<?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>1971 (4) TMI 80 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149874</link>
    <description>Where sales tax and penalty are statutorily recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the certificate procedure under the Revenue Recovery Act is valid and the receiving Collector must enforce it as such. The recovery authority cannot re-open the assessment or test its correctness in collateral recovery proceedings; the taxpayer must use the statutory remedy of payment under protest and suit for repayment where liability is disputed. A challenge that the assessment is a nullity for want of notice or authority also fails where delegation is presumed regular and the assessee had not pursued the remedies provided by the taxing statute. The enforcement machinery was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 16:27:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 80 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149874</link>
      <description>Where sales tax and penalty are statutorily recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the certificate procedure under the Revenue Recovery Act is valid and the receiving Collector must enforce it as such. The recovery authority cannot re-open the assessment or test its correctness in collateral recovery proceedings; the taxpayer must use the statutory remedy of payment under protest and suit for repayment where liability is disputed. A challenge that the assessment is a nullity for want of notice or authority also fails where delegation is presumed regular and the assessee had not pursued the remedies provided by the taxing statute. The enforcement machinery was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>