<?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>1997 (6) TMI 348 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159381</link>
    <description>Section 8(7) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 treats prior notice, disclosure of documents, and payment or security for revenue as mandatory conditions before interim relief is granted, and any relaxation is confined to exceptional cases supported by recorded reasons. Ex parte interim relief may be allowed only where refusal would cause dislocation, disruption, or closure of business, or loss incapable of adequate monetary compensation. On the stated facts, the pleadings did not disclose sufficient particulars to bypass these safeguards, and mere assertions of hardship were insufficient. The material also failed to show the requisite exceptional harm, so ex parte interim relief was not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:01:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 348 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159381</link>
      <description>Section 8(7) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 treats prior notice, disclosure of documents, and payment or security for revenue as mandatory conditions before interim relief is granted, and any relaxation is confined to exceptional cases supported by recorded reasons. Ex parte interim relief may be allowed only where refusal would cause dislocation, disruption, or closure of business, or loss incapable of adequate monetary compensation. On the stated facts, the pleadings did not disclose sufficient particulars to bypass these safeguards, and mere assertions of hardship were insufficient. The material also failed to show the requisite exceptional harm, so ex parte interim relief was not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>