https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152911 Recovery of sales tax arrears could not be resisted merely by alleging that the Bombay assessment and penalty were void for breach of Article 286; the subsisting orders had first to be set aside in proper proceedings, so the challenge failed. The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 was read as a Central enactment permitting a certificate issued in one State to be enforced by recovery authorities in another, so recovery in Kerala of amounts due to Bombay authorities was valid. The Deputy Tahsildar's notice was also upheld because the objection based on competence and delegation under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 was rejected on binding precedent. en-us Wed, 26 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:17:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152911 Recovery of sales tax arrears could not be resisted merely by alleging that the Bombay assessment and penalty were void for breach of Article 286; the subsisting orders had first to be set aside in proper proceedings, so the challenge failed. The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 was read as a Central enactment permitting a certificate issued in one State to be enforced by recovery authorities in another, so recovery in Kerala of amounts due to Bombay authorities was valid. The Deputy Tahsildar's notice was also upheld because the objection based on competence and delegation under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 was rejected on binding precedent. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 26 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152911