https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413794 A writ challenge to revenue recovery was discussed in relation to alternative remedy, Rule 285N of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, and section 34 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The commentary states that the alternative-remedy objection was declined because the dispute was purely legal and no statutory fact-finding was needed, while Rule 285N was treated as inapplicable because no confirmed sale under that rule had occurred. It further explains that a transfer made after release of a bank's charge to discharge secured dues was protected under section 34(2), which was treated as overriding section 34(1); absent proof of fraud, the revenue could not proceed against the transferee's property. en-us Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413794 A writ challenge to revenue recovery was discussed in relation to alternative remedy, Rule 285N of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, and section 34 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The commentary states that the alternative-remedy objection was declined because the dispute was purely legal and no statutory fact-finding was needed, while Rule 285N was treated as inapplicable because no confirmed sale under that rule had occurred. It further explains that a transfer made after release of a bank's charge to discharge secured dues was protected under section 34(2), which was treated as overriding section 34(1); absent proof of fraud, the revenue could not proceed against the transferee's property. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413794