<?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>1979 (4) TMI 149 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152851</link>
    <description>A recovery certificate issued under section 8(8) was treated as outside the appellate scope because section 9(1) allowed appeals only from orders expressly made appealable. Even if the endorsement on the order sheet was viewed as an order of the Sales Tax Officer, it remained an order under section 8(8) and was still not appealable. The assessee&#039;s appeal was therefore incompetent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:23:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (4) TMI 149 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152851</link>
      <description>A recovery certificate issued under section 8(8) was treated as outside the appellate scope because section 9(1) allowed appeals only from orders expressly made appealable. Even if the endorsement on the order sheet was viewed as an order of the Sales Tax Officer, it remained an order under section 8(8) and was still not appealable. The assessee&#039;s appeal was therefore incompetent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>