<?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>1966 (6) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293217</link>
    <description>Civil court jurisdiction is not excluded where excise authorities seek to apply a taxing statute to goods said to lie wholly outside its scope; statutory finality of departmental appeals and revisions operates only within the Act and does not bar a suit against ultra vires action. A partition of joint family power looms by agreement, even involving a minor coparcener, remains valid unless shown to be unfair or prejudicial, and can sever the family holdings into separate ownership. On that basis, the partition was effective and the resulting looms fell below the exempted threshold, so the excise demand could not stand and declaratory and injunctive relief was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:52:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=634215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (6) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293217</link>
      <description>Civil court jurisdiction is not excluded where excise authorities seek to apply a taxing statute to goods said to lie wholly outside its scope; statutory finality of departmental appeals and revisions operates only within the Act and does not bar a suit against ultra vires action. A partition of joint family power looms by agreement, even involving a minor coparcener, remains valid unless shown to be unfair or prejudicial, and can sever the family holdings into separate ownership. On that basis, the partition was effective and the resulting looms fell below the exempted threshold, so the excise demand could not stand and declaratory and injunctive relief was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>