<?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>1977 (1) TMI 129 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101628</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court of India held that the retrospective insertion of section 31 in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 validated the enhanced assessments and expressly overrode the earlier High Court judgment. Because the legislature had given the amendment retroactive effect and declared prior assessments and proceedings to be valid notwithstanding any contrary court order, the revising authority was bound to apply the amended law and could not be controlled by the earlier ruling. The court also rejected the objection that the amendment was inoperative for want of a separate machinery provision, finding no such difficulty on the facts and treating the retrospective validation as sufficient to restore the assessments in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (1) TMI 129 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101628</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court of India held that the retrospective insertion of section 31 in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 validated the enhanced assessments and expressly overrode the earlier High Court judgment. Because the legislature had given the amendment retroactive effect and declared prior assessments and proceedings to be valid notwithstanding any contrary court order, the revising authority was bound to apply the amended law and could not be controlled by the earlier ruling. The court also rejected the objection that the amendment was inoperative for want of a separate machinery provision, finding no such difficulty on the facts and treating the retrospective validation as sufficient to restore the assessments in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>