<?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>2008 (9) TMI 888 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163568</link>
    <description>Strict compliance with the statutory procedure for revenue recovery sales of immovable property is mandatory, so inadequate publicity and failure to observe the required time-gap rendered the auction invalid and liable to be set aside. A sale cannot also be sustained against a joint owner&#039;s interest when that person had an independent proprietary share and was not given prior notice; such omission was treated as a fatal defect affecting due process. The writ petitions were allowed, the auction proceedings and sale confirmation were quashed, and the department was permitted to proceed afresh in accordance with law if the required deposit and further steps were not complied with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 888 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163568</link>
      <description>Strict compliance with the statutory procedure for revenue recovery sales of immovable property is mandatory, so inadequate publicity and failure to observe the required time-gap rendered the auction invalid and liable to be set aside. A sale cannot also be sustained against a joint owner&#039;s interest when that person had an independent proprietary share and was not given prior notice; such omission was treated as a fatal defect affecting due process. The writ petitions were allowed, the auction proceedings and sale confirmation were quashed, and the department was permitted to proceed afresh in accordance with law if the required deposit and further steps were not complied with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>