<?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>1953 (4) TMI 14 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127249</link>
    <description>Where a taxing statute requires questions of law arising from an appellate order to be referred, the appellate authority cannot refuse a reference on the ground that the issues are already settled or supposedly not debatable. The authority must consider all questions of law arising from its order, even if not precisely framed by the applicant, and the existing view does not prevent the High Court from examining its correctness. The separate refund contention was not entertained because it had not been raised before the tax authorities or the Board and was unsupported on the record. The refusal to state the case was therefore incorrect, and reference of the legal questions was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:58:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (4) TMI 14 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127249</link>
      <description>Where a taxing statute requires questions of law arising from an appellate order to be referred, the appellate authority cannot refuse a reference on the ground that the issues are already settled or supposedly not debatable. The authority must consider all questions of law arising from its order, even if not precisely framed by the applicant, and the existing view does not prevent the High Court from examining its correctness. The separate refund contention was not entertained because it had not been raised before the tax authorities or the Board and was unsupported on the record. The refusal to state the case was therefore incorrect, and reference of the legal questions was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>