<?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>1981 (7) TMI 231 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154226</link>
    <description>Arrears of sales tax recoverable as arrears of land revenue could support attachment and sale of tenancy rights, and section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act did not bar such recovery because it applied to civil court process. The attachment was upheld because the Collector&#039;s powers under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act stood delegated to Commercial Taxes Officers. However, the sale itself was void because section 239 authorised conduct of the sale only by the Collector, an Assistant Collector or a specially appointed Tehsildar, and the bid here was accepted by an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer without statutory competence. The void sale was not cured by failure to seek relief for a mere irregularity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:24:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (7) TMI 231 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154226</link>
      <description>Arrears of sales tax recoverable as arrears of land revenue could support attachment and sale of tenancy rights, and section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act did not bar such recovery because it applied to civil court process. The attachment was upheld because the Collector&#039;s powers under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act stood delegated to Commercial Taxes Officers. However, the sale itself was void because section 239 authorised conduct of the sale only by the Collector, an Assistant Collector or a specially appointed Tehsildar, and the bid here was accepted by an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer without statutory competence. The void sale was not cured by failure to seek relief for a mere irregularity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>