<?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>1993 (1) TMI 272 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157439</link>
    <description>A factual classification dispute over asbestos cement pressure pipes was not entertained in writ jurisdiction because the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 provided a complete statutory machinery, including appeal and revision, and the matter was left to the tax authorities. Coercive recovery of sales tax dues against a sick industrial company was barred during the pendency of proceedings before the Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, since section 22 prohibits execution or distress proceedings without consent and section 32 gives the Act overriding effect. The petition was therefore protected only against coercive recovery during the Board proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:46:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 272 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157439</link>
      <description>A factual classification dispute over asbestos cement pressure pipes was not entertained in writ jurisdiction because the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 provided a complete statutory machinery, including appeal and revision, and the matter was left to the tax authorities. Coercive recovery of sales tax dues against a sick industrial company was barred during the pendency of proceedings before the Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, since section 22 prohibits execution or distress proceedings without consent and section 32 gives the Act overriding effect. The petition was therefore protected only against coercive recovery during the Board proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>