<?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>2004 (3) TMI 760 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175471</link>
    <description>Coercive recovery was to remain restrained while the petitioner&#039;s appeal and stay application were filed and considered before the Sales-tax Tribunal. The High Court observed that no coercive action should be taken until the stay application is heard, and continued interim protection accordingly. The operative effect was preservation of the status quo pending the Tribunal&#039;s consideration of stay relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:42:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 760 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175471</link>
      <description>Coercive recovery was to remain restrained while the petitioner&#039;s appeal and stay application were filed and considered before the Sales-tax Tribunal. The High Court observed that no coercive action should be taken until the stay application is heard, and continued interim protection accordingly. The operative effect was preservation of the status quo pending the Tribunal&#039;s consideration of stay relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>