<?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>2002 (7) TMI 774 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161475</link>
    <description>Where a stay order under the U.P. Trade Tax Act depends on furnishing security within a prescribed period, the delay in compliance may be condoned and time extended if the provision is read as directory rather than rigidly mandatory. The court treated the relevant provisions as substantively identical and followed earlier decisions permitting such relief where justified. The Tribunal erred in holding that no extension was permissible, because that construction conflicted with the settled interpretation of the statutory condition. The petitioner was therefore entitled to have the security accepted without being treated as a defaulter, and the protection against recovery continued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:27:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 774 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161475</link>
      <description>Where a stay order under the U.P. Trade Tax Act depends on furnishing security within a prescribed period, the delay in compliance may be condoned and time extended if the provision is read as directory rather than rigidly mandatory. The court treated the relevant provisions as substantively identical and followed earlier decisions permitting such relief where justified. The Tribunal erred in holding that no extension was permissible, because that construction conflicted with the settled interpretation of the statutory condition. The petitioner was therefore entitled to have the security accepted without being treated as a defaulter, and the protection against recovery continued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>