<?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>1987 (10) TMI 360 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155399</link>
    <description>A sales tax licence refusal under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was held invalid because the statutory procedure in rule 4(6) was not followed. Where the Sales Tax Officer is not satisfied about the correctness of turnover particulars, the rule requires further enquiry and an opportunity to the applicant to prove the correctness and completeness of the information before rejection on a best-judgment basis. Here, the departmental material was not disclosed and no effective opportunity was given, so the adverse orders breached the mandatory safeguard and could not stand. The applications were directed to be reconsidered after compliance with the prescribed procedure and fair hearing requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:27:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 360 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155399</link>
      <description>A sales tax licence refusal under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was held invalid because the statutory procedure in rule 4(6) was not followed. Where the Sales Tax Officer is not satisfied about the correctness of turnover particulars, the rule requires further enquiry and an opportunity to the applicant to prove the correctness and completeness of the information before rejection on a best-judgment basis. Here, the departmental material was not disclosed and no effective opportunity was given, so the adverse orders breached the mandatory safeguard and could not stand. The applications were directed to be reconsidered after compliance with the prescribed procedure and fair hearing requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>