<?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>1992 (8) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157229</link>
    <description>Transfers of sales tax proceedings between offices in the same city, locality or place under section 70 did not require prior hearing because those terms operate disjunctively and the proviso dispenses with hearing in that setting. The hearing requirement was treated as directory where it applies only &quot;wherever it is possible&quot;, and a taxpayer that participated without timely objection waived a territorial-jurisdiction challenge; the assessment was therefore not void. Availability of a statutory reference remedy did not bar writ review given the numerous pending matters and substantial revenue implications. The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside, and the second appeal was remitted for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:19:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157229</link>
      <description>Transfers of sales tax proceedings between offices in the same city, locality or place under section 70 did not require prior hearing because those terms operate disjunctively and the proviso dispenses with hearing in that setting. The hearing requirement was treated as directory where it applies only &quot;wherever it is possible&quot;, and a taxpayer that participated without timely objection waived a territorial-jurisdiction challenge; the assessment was therefore not void. Availability of a statutory reference remedy did not bar writ review given the numerous pending matters and substantial revenue implications. The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside, and the second appeal was remitted for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>