<?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 (7) TMI 701 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249665</link>
    <description>A statutory first charge under the sales tax law prevails over prior secured interests and the appropriation claim of a financial corporation. The State Financial Corporations Act, including its non obstante clause and scheme for sale proceeds, did not displace the tax statute&#039;s overriding charge. Applying the principle on competing non obstante clauses and statutory charges, the notification requiring a no objection certificate before sale of industrial units and deduction of sales tax from sale proceeds was treated as a valid recovery mechanism rather than an arbitrary exercise of power. The challenge to the notification failed and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 701 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249665</link>
      <description>A statutory first charge under the sales tax law prevails over prior secured interests and the appropriation claim of a financial corporation. The State Financial Corporations Act, including its non obstante clause and scheme for sale proceeds, did not displace the tax statute&#039;s overriding charge. Applying the principle on competing non obstante clauses and statutory charges, the notification requiring a no objection certificate before sale of industrial units and deduction of sales tax from sale proceeds was treated as a valid recovery mechanism rather than an arbitrary exercise of power. The challenge to the notification failed and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>