<?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>1976 (2) TMI 46 - ITAT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57892</link>
    <description>The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal was examined to determine whether it is a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Applying the test of whether the body is entrusted with the judicial power of the State and can deliver a final, authoritative judgment, the Tribunal held that taxing authorities and taxing tribunals under sales tax law are part of the State&#039;s assessment machinery and not Courts. Its correctional jurisdiction, hearing of both sides, procedural powers, and the finality of its orders, including the possibility of reference to the High Court, did not change its essential character. The contempt application was therefore untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:22:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (2) TMI 46 - ITAT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57892</link>
      <description>The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal was examined to determine whether it is a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Applying the test of whether the body is entrusted with the judicial power of the State and can deliver a final, authoritative judgment, the Tribunal held that taxing authorities and taxing tribunals under sales tax law are part of the State&#039;s assessment machinery and not Courts. Its correctional jurisdiction, hearing of both sides, procedural powers, and the finality of its orders, including the possibility of reference to the High Court, did not change its essential character. The contempt application was therefore untenable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>