<?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>1994 (8) TMI 297 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173189</link>
    <description>Interim restraint on municipal tax recovery should not be granted lightly where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available and public revenue administration may be impeded. The Court stressed that revenue matters call for circumspection in interlocutory relief, and that bypassing statutory remedies without justification can amount to abuse of process. It noted that the assessee had withdrawn earlier writ proceedings and then filed a civil suit on the same cause of action, which weighed against continued protection. The existence of a prima facie case alone was held insufficient to sustain a stay that would disrupt municipal functioning. The interim stay orders were therefore set aside and recovery was allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:24:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (8) TMI 297 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173189</link>
      <description>Interim restraint on municipal tax recovery should not be granted lightly where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available and public revenue administration may be impeded. The Court stressed that revenue matters call for circumspection in interlocutory relief, and that bypassing statutory remedies without justification can amount to abuse of process. It noted that the assessee had withdrawn earlier writ proceedings and then filed a civil suit on the same cause of action, which weighed against continued protection. The existence of a prima facie case alone was held insufficient to sustain a stay that would disrupt municipal functioning. The interim stay orders were therefore set aside and recovery was allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>