<?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>2001 (5) TMI 931 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160954</link>
    <description>A challenge to notices and summons issued for recovery of sales tax dues was treated as a challenge to statutory recovery proceedings founded on assessment orders. Section 62(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was applied as a complete bar to civil court jurisdiction in matters falling within the authority&#039;s statutory powers, and the cited precedent was distinguished because the recovery action was not shown to be without jurisdiction or constitutionally prohibited. Any grievance based on alleged misrepresentation by the surety applicant was held to lie against the private party, not as a ground to defeat statutory recovery. The civil suit was therefore held not entertainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:57:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 931 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160954</link>
      <description>A challenge to notices and summons issued for recovery of sales tax dues was treated as a challenge to statutory recovery proceedings founded on assessment orders. Section 62(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was applied as a complete bar to civil court jurisdiction in matters falling within the authority&#039;s statutory powers, and the cited precedent was distinguished because the recovery action was not shown to be without jurisdiction or constitutionally prohibited. Any grievance based on alleged misrepresentation by the surety applicant was held to lie against the private party, not as a ground to defeat statutory recovery. The civil suit was therefore held not entertainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>