<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1235 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173374</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to cancellation of a diesel dealer&#039;s licence was not entertained because the dispute turned on inspection material, stock records and calibration data, all raising disputed questions of fact fit for the statutory appellate forum. The Court noted that excess stock could constitute breach of licence conditions and that the authorities were entitled to inspect the premises. Allegations of mala fides were held to be vague and unsupported by material, so the exception to the alternative-remedy rule did not apply. On that basis, writ interference was unwarranted and the cancellation dispute had to be pursued before the prescribed authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1235 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173374</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to cancellation of a diesel dealer&#039;s licence was not entertained because the dispute turned on inspection material, stock records and calibration data, all raising disputed questions of fact fit for the statutory appellate forum. The Court noted that excess stock could constitute breach of licence conditions and that the authorities were entitled to inspect the premises. Allegations of mala fides were held to be vague and unsupported by material, so the exception to the alternative-remedy rule did not apply. On that basis, writ interference was unwarranted and the cancellation dispute had to be pursued before the prescribed authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>