<?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>1978 (4) TMI 229 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152530</link>
    <description>Service of notice of demand under section 13(4) was treated as a condition precedent to liability and to recovery as arrears of land revenue under the Orissa sales tax law. Because the notice was not served, the assessed amount never acquired the character of a recoverable public demand, and the certificate proceeding lacked statutory foundation and was not maintainable. The civil court&#039;s jurisdiction was not excluded merely because the assessment itself could not be reopened; where mandatory preconditions for recovery were absent, the court could examine the legality of the certificate proceeding. The challenge to recovery therefore succeeded, while the assessment remained immune from attack on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2013 12:48:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (4) TMI 229 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152530</link>
      <description>Service of notice of demand under section 13(4) was treated as a condition precedent to liability and to recovery as arrears of land revenue under the Orissa sales tax law. Because the notice was not served, the assessed amount never acquired the character of a recoverable public demand, and the certificate proceeding lacked statutory foundation and was not maintainable. The civil court&#039;s jurisdiction was not excluded merely because the assessment itself could not be reopened; where mandatory preconditions for recovery were absent, the court could examine the legality of the certificate proceeding. The challenge to recovery therefore succeeded, while the assessment remained immune from attack on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>