<?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>1974 (3) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39553</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction was declined in a tax dispute because an effective statutory appellate remedy was available under the Estate Duty Act and had already been invoked. The High Court held that objections to the assessment and demand notices, including limitation, could be raised before the appellate authority on merits, so interference under Article 226 was not warranted. The petition was therefore dismissed as not maintainable for writ relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:22:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (3) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39553</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction was declined in a tax dispute because an effective statutory appellate remedy was available under the Estate Duty Act and had already been invoked. The High Court held that objections to the assessment and demand notices, including limitation, could be raised before the appellate authority on merits, so interference under Article 226 was not warranted. The petition was therefore dismissed as not maintainable for writ relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>