<?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 (7) TMI 563 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155492</link>
    <description>A writ petition under Article 226 challenging an assessment under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was treated as inappropriate where an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The court noted that a deposit requirement for appeal did not, by itself, render the remedy illusory, and that objections about the form of notice did not show that the assessment lay outside the Act. Alleged defects in natural justice involved factual questions suitable for appellate examination, including opportunity of hearing and the need for cross-examination. The petitioners&#039; suppression of material facts and delay further supported refusal to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:15:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 563 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155492</link>
      <description>A writ petition under Article 226 challenging an assessment under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was treated as inappropriate where an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The court noted that a deposit requirement for appeal did not, by itself, render the remedy illusory, and that objections about the form of notice did not show that the assessment lay outside the Act. Alleged defects in natural justice involved factual questions suitable for appellate examination, including opportunity of hearing and the need for cross-examination. The petitioners&#039; suppression of material facts and delay further supported refusal to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>