<?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 (5) TMI 1097 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181007</link>
    <description>A writ of prohibition lies only where an assessing authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in clear breach of law. Here, notices issued under the value added tax penalty provisions were challenged on the ground that the authority lacked jurisdiction and that a cash memo need not state the purchaser&#039;s name and address. The HC found the assessing authority was competent to initiate the proceedings, and held that the objection raised a factual and interpretative dispute that could be explained before that authority. As the jurisdictional basis for prohibition was absent, the challenge to the notices failed and no writ of prohibition was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:01:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 1097 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181007</link>
      <description>A writ of prohibition lies only where an assessing authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in clear breach of law. Here, notices issued under the value added tax penalty provisions were challenged on the ground that the authority lacked jurisdiction and that a cash memo need not state the purchaser&#039;s name and address. The HC found the assessing authority was competent to initiate the proceedings, and held that the objection raised a factual and interpretative dispute that could be explained before that authority. As the jurisdictional basis for prohibition was absent, the challenge to the notices failed and no writ of prohibition was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>