<?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>1991 (10) TMI 317 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191354</link>
    <description>Authorities lacked jurisdiction to seize the truck under Sections 13-A and 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, so the seizure of the vehicle was set aside and its release was directed forthwith. No view was taken on seizure of the goods carried in the truck because the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal, leaving that issue unadjudicated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 317 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191354</link>
      <description>Authorities lacked jurisdiction to seize the truck under Sections 13-A and 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, so the seizure of the vehicle was set aside and its release was directed forthwith. No view was taken on seizure of the goods carried in the truck because the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal, leaving that issue unadjudicated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>