<?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>1999 (10) TMI 712 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160955</link>
    <description>A civil challenge to a sales tax assessment is generally not maintainable where the taxpayer has already elected and pursued the statutory appellate remedy, especially after accepting the jurisdiction of the tax authorities. The statutory bars under the Delhi Sales Tax Act and the Haryana General Sales Tax Act reinforced the objection to civil court jurisdiction. Interim injunction was refused because the plaintiff lacked bona fides, had no prima facie case, and failed to show balance of convenience. The revisional court also declined interference, holding that the concurrent orders rejecting interim relief fell within the limited scope of revisional review.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:02:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 712 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160955</link>
      <description>A civil challenge to a sales tax assessment is generally not maintainable where the taxpayer has already elected and pursued the statutory appellate remedy, especially after accepting the jurisdiction of the tax authorities. The statutory bars under the Delhi Sales Tax Act and the Haryana General Sales Tax Act reinforced the objection to civil court jurisdiction. Interim injunction was refused because the plaintiff lacked bona fides, had no prima facie case, and failed to show balance of convenience. The revisional court also declined interference, holding that the concurrent orders rejecting interim relief fell within the limited scope of revisional review.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>