<?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>2006 (7) TMI 629 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163092</link>
    <description>A special statutory regime governing sugarcane purchases for factories, together with the control order, was held to occupy the field and exclude inconsistent general market legislation. As a result, market fee could not be levied on transactions of sale and purchase of sugarcane between factory occupiers and cane growers or their co-operative societies. The challenge was also not barred by res judicata because an earlier dismissal on a statutory interpretation issue did not preclude reconsideration, particularly where the prior order involved a different cause of action and the fee demands were without jurisdiction. The fee demands were quashed and refund was directed for amounts collected under them, subject to the order&#039;s prospective limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:52:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 629 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163092</link>
      <description>A special statutory regime governing sugarcane purchases for factories, together with the control order, was held to occupy the field and exclude inconsistent general market legislation. As a result, market fee could not be levied on transactions of sale and purchase of sugarcane between factory occupiers and cane growers or their co-operative societies. The challenge was also not barred by res judicata because an earlier dismissal on a statutory interpretation issue did not preclude reconsideration, particularly where the prior order involved a different cause of action and the fee demands were without jurisdiction. The fee demands were quashed and refund was directed for amounts collected under them, subject to the order&#039;s prospective limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>