<?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 571 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155802</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where the dispute turns on complex, disputed facts and an effective statutory revisional remedy is available. The controversy depended on whether the assessee-firm had been dissolved and whether the petitioner could be treated as a transferee of the business, matters requiring factual scrutiny unsuitable for writ proceedings. The petitioner was directed to pursue the revisional remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, and the revision was to be considered on merits without objection on limitation if filed within the time allowed. The writ petition was therefore not entertained on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:02:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 571 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155802</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where the dispute turns on complex, disputed facts and an effective statutory revisional remedy is available. The controversy depended on whether the assessee-firm had been dissolved and whether the petitioner could be treated as a transferee of the business, matters requiring factual scrutiny unsuitable for writ proceedings. The petitioner was directed to pursue the revisional remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, and the revision was to be considered on merits without objection on limitation if filed within the time allowed. The writ petition was therefore not entertained on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>