<?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>2014 (5) TMI 177 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247250</link>
    <description>Recovery of transit fee on coal under the U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 was not restrained, because the writ petition raised no issue distinct from earlier cases on the same levy and the Supreme Court had already modified its interim arrangement on 29.10.2013. The court applied that modified interim direction, under which transit fee could be recovered at the rate in the third amendment to the Rules, subject to the outcome of the pending special leave petitions. Blanket relief against collection was therefore declined, and the petitioner received only the same interim protection already operating from the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 09:47:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 177 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247250</link>
      <description>Recovery of transit fee on coal under the U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 was not restrained, because the writ petition raised no issue distinct from earlier cases on the same levy and the Supreme Court had already modified its interim arrangement on 29.10.2013. The court applied that modified interim direction, under which transit fee could be recovered at the rate in the third amendment to the Rules, subject to the outcome of the pending special leave petitions. Blanket relief against collection was therefore declined, and the petitioner received only the same interim protection already operating from the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>