<?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>2021 (11) TMI 943 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415162</link>
    <description>The note explains that a notice styled as a pre-attachment demand under revenue recovery law does not, by itself, create an enforceable grievance for a later transferee, so locus standi and cause of action may be absent. It also states that Article 226 relief is ordinarily unavailable where the notice is issued within the statutory recovery scheme, because the demand precedes attachment and further coercive steps follow only if the amount remains unpaid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:57:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 943 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415162</link>
      <description>The note explains that a notice styled as a pre-attachment demand under revenue recovery law does not, by itself, create an enforceable grievance for a later transferee, so locus standi and cause of action may be absent. It also states that Article 226 relief is ordinarily unavailable where the notice is issued within the statutory recovery scheme, because the demand precedes attachment and further coercive steps follow only if the amount remains unpaid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>