<?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 (11) TMI 623 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163809</link>
    <description>Interim protection was conditional on the petitioner depositing the quantified amount with simple interest within the stipulated time, and non-compliance with that pre-condition justified refusal of writ relief. The Court also treated the retained amount as sales tax collected on behalf of the State and payable to the Government. On those facts, the writ petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 623 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163809</link>
      <description>Interim protection was conditional on the petitioner depositing the quantified amount with simple interest within the stipulated time, and non-compliance with that pre-condition justified refusal of writ relief. The Court also treated the retained amount as sales tax collected on behalf of the State and payable to the Government. On those facts, the writ petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>