<?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>2003 (10) TMI 657 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187794</link>
    <description>A complaint for recovery of sales tax arrears under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was challenged on the basis that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction and that the Code of Criminal Procedure limits on jurisdiction, limitation, and pecuniary competence applied. The court held that the proceeding arose under a special enactment expressly authorising recovery of tax arrears through a Magistrate as if they were a fine, so the special statute governed the field. The general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code could not displace that statutory recovery mechanism. The petition to quash the complaint was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:21:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 657 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187794</link>
      <description>A complaint for recovery of sales tax arrears under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was challenged on the basis that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction and that the Code of Criminal Procedure limits on jurisdiction, limitation, and pecuniary competence applied. The court held that the proceeding arose under a special enactment expressly authorising recovery of tax arrears through a Magistrate as if they were a fine, so the special statute governed the field. The general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code could not displace that statutory recovery mechanism. The petition to quash the complaint was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>