<?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>2016 (5) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327791</link>
    <description>The Court granted the writ petition filed by a dealer under the DVAT Act, directing the immediate de-sealing of the business premises sealed by the Department of Trade &amp;amp; Taxes. Emphasizing the prejudice caused by prolonged sealing, the Court referred to past orders and principles under Section 60 of the DVAT Act. Specific directions were given for de-sealing, including the presence of the petitioner&#039;s representative and documentation requirements. The petition was disposed of with the pursuit of post-sealing demand left to legal procedures. The Court also kept open the consideration of the constitutional validity of certain provisions for future cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 17:37:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327791</link>
      <description>The Court granted the writ petition filed by a dealer under the DVAT Act, directing the immediate de-sealing of the business premises sealed by the Department of Trade &amp;amp; Taxes. Emphasizing the prejudice caused by prolonged sealing, the Court referred to past orders and principles under Section 60 of the DVAT Act. Specific directions were given for de-sealing, including the presence of the petitioner&#039;s representative and documentation requirements. The petition was disposed of with the pursuit of post-sealing demand left to legal procedures. The Court also kept open the consideration of the constitutional validity of certain provisions for future cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>