<?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 (7) TMI 399 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158753</link>
    <description>Arrest and detention for recovery of tax arrears could be ordered only after the authority formed a reasoned satisfaction, on relevant material, that detention would compel payment, and the defaulter was given an opportunity to explain genuine inability to pay; the detention orders were therefore invalid for lack of inquiry and natural justice compliance. A single recovery certificate covering a consolidated demand for several assessment years could not support detention beyond the statutory maximum period, so detention beyond 15 days was without jurisdiction. The objection that the recovery machinery did not apply in Delhi&#039;s municipal areas was rejected because the later sales tax law applied the land revenue recovery process throughout Delhi.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:59:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 399 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158753</link>
      <description>Arrest and detention for recovery of tax arrears could be ordered only after the authority formed a reasoned satisfaction, on relevant material, that detention would compel payment, and the defaulter was given an opportunity to explain genuine inability to pay; the detention orders were therefore invalid for lack of inquiry and natural justice compliance. A single recovery certificate covering a consolidated demand for several assessment years could not support detention beyond the statutory maximum period, so detention beyond 15 days was without jurisdiction. The objection that the recovery machinery did not apply in Delhi&#039;s municipal areas was rejected because the later sales tax law applied the land revenue recovery process throughout Delhi.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>