<?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 (7) TMI 383 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155699</link>
    <description>The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition challenging a requisition for a certificate of public demand under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962. The petitioner&#039;s objections to the requisition and certificate were overruled, leading to an attachment warrant. The court found an arithmetical error in the certificate demand but deemed it immaterial. The petitioner&#039;s argument on the limitation period for the demand was rejected. Insufficient evidence to refute outstanding sales tax dues and a belated petition for amending the writ led to the dismissal of the petition, with costs not awarded. Justice Gopalaswamy concurred with the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:57:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 383 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155699</link>
      <description>The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition challenging a requisition for a certificate of public demand under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962. The petitioner&#039;s objections to the requisition and certificate were overruled, leading to an attachment warrant. The court found an arithmetical error in the certificate demand but deemed it immaterial. The petitioner&#039;s argument on the limitation period for the demand was rejected. Insufficient evidence to refute outstanding sales tax dues and a belated petition for amending the writ led to the dismissal of the petition, with costs not awarded. Justice Gopalaswamy concurred with the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>