<?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>2003 (1) TMI 665 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161368</link>
    <description>A revenue authority may recover admitted sales tax arrears through the lawful revenue recovery process, but it cannot impose a separate prohibitory restraint on running or leasing a mill unless express statutory power exists. The court found no provision in the sales tax laws, their rules, or the revenue recovery law authorising such a direction, so the restraint was held without jurisdiction and unenforceable. Recovery of dues could proceed only through modes permitted by law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:46:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 665 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161368</link>
      <description>A revenue authority may recover admitted sales tax arrears through the lawful revenue recovery process, but it cannot impose a separate prohibitory restraint on running or leasing a mill unless express statutory power exists. The court found no provision in the sales tax laws, their rules, or the revenue recovery law authorising such a direction, so the restraint was held without jurisdiction and unenforceable. Recovery of dues could proceed only through modes permitted by law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>