<?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>1988 (1) TMI 342 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155467</link>
    <description>The Entry Tax Act originally allowed only a first appeal, but the amending Act No. 22 of 1977 substituted that scheme by making section 38 of the Sales Tax Act applicable and introducing a second appellate remedy while omitting section 15. Because the assessment order and first appellate order were both passed after the amendment came into force on 1 May 1977, the amended appellate procedure governed maintainability. The governing principle was that no vested right to finality arises merely from the institution of proceedings; the applicable remedy depends on the law in force when the order under challenge is made. The second appeal was therefore maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:01:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 342 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155467</link>
      <description>The Entry Tax Act originally allowed only a first appeal, but the amending Act No. 22 of 1977 substituted that scheme by making section 38 of the Sales Tax Act applicable and introducing a second appellate remedy while omitting section 15. Because the assessment order and first appellate order were both passed after the amendment came into force on 1 May 1977, the amended appellate procedure governed maintainability. The governing principle was that no vested right to finality arises merely from the institution of proceedings; the applicable remedy depends on the law in force when the order under challenge is made. The second appeal was therefore maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>