TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a dealer whose assessment had become final could claim refund of sales tax and central sales tax merely because another assessee had obtained a favourable writ decision extending the benefit of a Government Order.
Analysis: The assessments for the relevant years had been completed and had attained finality. The challenge was not to the validity of the assessment or to the competence of the assessing authority, but was founded only on the circumstance that another manufacturer had secured relief in respect of a similar claim for benefit of the Government Order. The legal bar against civil suits for refund under the sales tax law did not alter the requirement that the assessee must first have the assessment set aside in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the principle that refund cannot be claimed when the order under which tax was collected continues to stand, and that a person cannot treat another assessee's success as a basis for reopening his own final assessment. The reasoning in the cited Supreme Court decision emphasized the sanctity of finality of proceedings and the rule that each assessee must succeed or fail in his own proceedings.
Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and the writ petitions were rightly rejected; the decision was against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
TaxTMI 
