<?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>1995 (1) TMI 346 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158007</link>
    <description>A Government communication advising the recovery authority that a sales tax exemption application was under consideration and requesting that no coercive steps be taken was treated as effective, and the objection to its validity was rejected because the State could not disown the act of its own officer on those facts. With the exemption claim still pending before the competent authority, coercive revenue recovery was held inappropriate until the claim was finally decided. The authority was directed to dispose of the exemption application within one month, leaving the recovery proceedings in abeyance in the meantime and providing interim protection against coercive recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:57:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=328169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 346 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158007</link>
      <description>A Government communication advising the recovery authority that a sales tax exemption application was under consideration and requesting that no coercive steps be taken was treated as effective, and the objection to its validity was rejected because the State could not disown the act of its own officer on those facts. With the exemption claim still pending before the competent authority, coercive revenue recovery was held inappropriate until the claim was finally decided. The authority was directed to dispose of the exemption application within one month, leaving the recovery proceedings in abeyance in the meantime and providing interim protection against coercive recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>