<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1025 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164959</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to distraint and proposed auction for sales tax arrears was declined because the dispute turned on contested facts about whether the property had been validly given as security. The statutory first charge under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the power to recover dues as land revenue supported the revenue&#039;s action, but the Court found that the existence of an equitable mortgage or security bond could not be satisfactorily examined in writ jurisdiction. The availability of a civil forum for resolving those factual issues also weighed against intervention, and the challenge to the distraint proceedings failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1025 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164959</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to distraint and proposed auction for sales tax arrears was declined because the dispute turned on contested facts about whether the property had been validly given as security. The statutory first charge under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the power to recover dues as land revenue supported the revenue&#039;s action, but the Court found that the existence of an equitable mortgage or security bond could not be satisfactorily examined in writ jurisdiction. The availability of a civil forum for resolving those factual issues also weighed against intervention, and the challenge to the distraint proceedings failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>