<?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 (9) TMI 332 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158125</link>
    <description>Section 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 creates a statutory first charge on the dealer&#039;s property for tax, penalty, interest and other sums payable under the Act, overriding any contrary law. The provision was treated as applying to pending claims, so sales tax dues could be asserted with priority over a bank&#039;s mortgage claim. Because the dues were recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the Sales Tax Department was not required to file a separate suit before claiming priority. The bank&#039;s status as a nationalised bank did not defeat the statutory charge, and the revisional court would not interfere merely on an alleged error of law where interference was otherwise unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:18:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 332 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158125</link>
      <description>Section 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 creates a statutory first charge on the dealer&#039;s property for tax, penalty, interest and other sums payable under the Act, overriding any contrary law. The provision was treated as applying to pending claims, so sales tax dues could be asserted with priority over a bank&#039;s mortgage claim. Because the dues were recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the Sales Tax Department was not required to file a separate suit before claiming priority. The bank&#039;s status as a nationalised bank did not defeat the statutory charge, and the revisional court would not interfere merely on an alleged error of law where interference was otherwise unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>