<?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>1988 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24468</link>
    <description>A hypothecation over movables in favour of a private bank did not, by itself, create a first charge overriding the State&#039;s right to recover sales tax arrears through revenue recovery. Where the attached goods remained available for recovery, the Government dues prevailed and the proposed sale could not be restrained. The writ petition therefore failed, and the State was entitled to proceed with recovery and sale of the movables for the arrears.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24468</link>
      <description>A hypothecation over movables in favour of a private bank did not, by itself, create a first charge overriding the State&#039;s right to recover sales tax arrears through revenue recovery. Where the attached goods remained available for recovery, the Government dues prevailed and the proposed sale could not be restrained. The writ petition therefore failed, and the State was entitled to proceed with recovery and sale of the movables for the arrears.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>