<?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 (7) TMI 673 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162373</link>
    <description>Penalty orders under the commercial tax law are vulnerable where the prescribed pre-decisional procedure is not followed: the authority must record reasons, issue a clear show-cause notice, allow time to reply, consider the explanation, and grant a meaningful hearing. The note also explains that vague notices, hurried action, and treating an unauthorised visit as participation can amount to breach of natural justice and render the order void. It further states that writ jurisdiction remains available where the impugned orders are per se illegal or passed in violation of mandatory statutory safeguards, even if an alternative remedy exists.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:22:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 673 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162373</link>
      <description>Penalty orders under the commercial tax law are vulnerable where the prescribed pre-decisional procedure is not followed: the authority must record reasons, issue a clear show-cause notice, allow time to reply, consider the explanation, and grant a meaningful hearing. The note also explains that vague notices, hurried action, and treating an unauthorised visit as participation can amount to breach of natural justice and render the order void. It further states that writ jurisdiction remains available where the impugned orders are per se illegal or passed in violation of mandatory statutory safeguards, even if an alternative remedy exists.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>