<?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 1531 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290298</link>
    <description>A petitioner sought reconveyance of land purchased by the State in revenue recovery proceedings without paying market value, relying on the Government&#039;s acceptance of the tax liability payment and proprietary estoppel. The reconveyance policy applied only to applications made within its terms, and the payment here was not made under that policy. However, because the Government accepted the full amount after the sale without objection and there was no fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, or compulsion, the Court held that equitable proprietary estoppel prevented insistence on market value. Relief was granted and reconveyance allowed without that payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:54:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1531 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290298</link>
      <description>A petitioner sought reconveyance of land purchased by the State in revenue recovery proceedings without paying market value, relying on the Government&#039;s acceptance of the tax liability payment and proprietary estoppel. The reconveyance policy applied only to applications made within its terms, and the payment here was not made under that policy. However, because the Government accepted the full amount after the sale without objection and there was no fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, or compulsion, the Court held that equitable proprietary estoppel prevented insistence on market value. Relief was granted and reconveyance allowed without that payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>