<?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 (7) TMI 881 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163805</link>
    <description>Section 45A of the M. P. Commercial Tax Act was upheld as intra vires because check-post interception and penal action were treated as valid fiscal machinery within the legislative field, and the constitutional challenge under Article 246 failed. The Court also declined writ interference with the notice and penalty order, holding that the dispute involved factual questions about the consignor, consignee, purchaser, and the nature of the goods movement, which had to be examined by the statutory authority. The availability of a statutory appeal was noted, and the impugned proceedings were left undisturbed, with liberty to pursue the prescribed remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 881 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163805</link>
      <description>Section 45A of the M. P. Commercial Tax Act was upheld as intra vires because check-post interception and penal action were treated as valid fiscal machinery within the legislative field, and the constitutional challenge under Article 246 failed. The Court also declined writ interference with the notice and penalty order, holding that the dispute involved factual questions about the consignor, consignee, purchaser, and the nature of the goods movement, which had to be examined by the statutory authority. The availability of a statutory appeal was noted, and the impugned proceedings were left undisturbed, with liberty to pursue the prescribed remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>