<?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>1977 (9) TMI 102 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151605</link>
    <description>In recovery of public dues, revenue authorities may attach property as belonging to the defaulter even where it had been transferred before the demand notice, without first setting aside the transfer; the transferee must instead pursue the statutory claim process or a civil suit to establish title. The Court also held that the availability of a revision remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act attracted the constitutional bar on entertaining the writ petition under Article 226(3), as an effective alternative remedy existed. The attachment was upheld, the writ petition was barred, the order of the single judge was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:59:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (9) TMI 102 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151605</link>
      <description>In recovery of public dues, revenue authorities may attach property as belonging to the defaulter even where it had been transferred before the demand notice, without first setting aside the transfer; the transferee must instead pursue the statutory claim process or a civil suit to establish title. The Court also held that the availability of a revision remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act attracted the constitutional bar on entertaining the writ petition under Article 226(3), as an effective alternative remedy existed. The attachment was upheld, the writ petition was barred, the order of the single judge was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>