<?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 (2) TMI 447 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161387</link>
    <description>A challenge to detention and release of goods was held to fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act, 1992, because that jurisdiction extends to disputes concerning levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of tax, including connected or incidental matters. The court treated the release of goods under section 42 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as a matter within the Tribunal&#039;s competence and accepted the preliminary objection that the writ remedy could not be invoked directly. The petitioner was therefore required to first approach the statutory Tribunal, and the writ petition was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 447 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161387</link>
      <description>A challenge to detention and release of goods was held to fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act, 1992, because that jurisdiction extends to disputes concerning levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of tax, including connected or incidental matters. The court treated the release of goods under section 42 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as a matter within the Tribunal&#039;s competence and accepted the preliminary objection that the writ remedy could not be invoked directly. The petitioner was therefore required to first approach the statutory Tribunal, and the writ petition was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>