<?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>1986 (4) TMI 29 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26100</link>
    <description>A recovery certificate is the legal for tax recovery proceedings, and such proceedings cannot continue if the certificate is validly withdrawn or cancelled; here, no material showed withdrawal or cancellation of the impugned certificate, so the challenge failed. Limitation for recovery under the old income-tax regime had to be computed from the relevant statutory period, including the effect of instalment arrangements; on the facts, recovery was shown to be within time, so the limitation objection failed. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction as an absolute rule, and the petition was entertained and decided on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:16:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 29 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26100</link>
      <description>A recovery certificate is the legal for tax recovery proceedings, and such proceedings cannot continue if the certificate is validly withdrawn or cancelled; here, no material showed withdrawal or cancellation of the impugned certificate, so the challenge failed. Limitation for recovery under the old income-tax regime had to be computed from the relevant statutory period, including the effect of instalment arrangements; on the facts, recovery was shown to be within time, so the limitation objection failed. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction as an absolute rule, and the petition was entertained and decided on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>