<?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 (10) TMI 624 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282024</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of Government Orders related to molasses distribution, finding the Controller of Molasses had authority even without an Advisory Committee. The absence of the Committee did not invalidate orders. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders, noting the petitioner&#039;s arguments on public policy, alternative remedies, and exemption clauses lacked merit. The court directed parties to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:03:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 624 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282024</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of Government Orders related to molasses distribution, finding the Controller of Molasses had authority even without an Advisory Committee. The absence of the Committee did not invalidate orders. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders, noting the petitioner&#039;s arguments on public policy, alternative remedies, and exemption clauses lacked merit. The court directed parties to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>