<?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>1935 (8) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292596</link>
    <description>Unpaid motor vehicles tax due to the Crown was treated as a debt attracting the Crown&#039;s prerogative right of priority over other creditors. The decree-holder&#039;s attachment and sale of the debtor&#039;s property did not create a charge over the sale proceeds or make the decree-holder a secured creditor. Because the money remained in court and the Crown&#039;s debt was notified, the court had to satisfy the tax claim in priority. The statutory recovery provisions in the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act did not exclude enforcement through other available means. The Crown&#039;s claim was therefore allowed and payment from the court-held proceeds was directed ahead of the decree-holder.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2021 10:43:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (8) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292596</link>
      <description>Unpaid motor vehicles tax due to the Crown was treated as a debt attracting the Crown&#039;s prerogative right of priority over other creditors. The decree-holder&#039;s attachment and sale of the debtor&#039;s property did not create a charge over the sale proceeds or make the decree-holder a secured creditor. Because the money remained in court and the Crown&#039;s debt was notified, the court had to satisfy the tax claim in priority. The statutory recovery provisions in the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act did not exclude enforcement through other available means. The Crown&#039;s claim was therefore allowed and payment from the court-held proceeds was directed ahead of the decree-holder.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>