<?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 (8) TMI 429 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155460</link>
    <description>A statutory reference application under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, could not be rejected for absence of a certified or authenticated copy of the second appellate order because neither the Act nor the applicable rules imposed that requirement. Procedural conditions from the High Court Rules governing section 44(2) applications could not be imported into a Tribunal reference under section 44(1), especially when the Tribunal already had the record. Additional procedural burdens not expressly authorised by the statute could not defeat the substantive remedy, and the applications had to be entertained and decided on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:43:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 429 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155460</link>
      <description>A statutory reference application under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, could not be rejected for absence of a certified or authenticated copy of the second appellate order because neither the Act nor the applicable rules imposed that requirement. Procedural conditions from the High Court Rules governing section 44(2) applications could not be imported into a Tribunal reference under section 44(1), especially when the Tribunal already had the record. Additional procedural burdens not expressly authorised by the statute could not defeat the substantive remedy, and the applications had to be entertained and decided on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>