<?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>1960 (11) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128272</link>
    <description>Cloth manufactured on power-looms was not brought within the additional sales tax imposed by Act XX of 1954, because that provision, on its terms, applied only to mill cloth and could not be expanded by an executive press note; the retrospective amendment in Act III of 1956 was what extended the levy to power-loom cloth. A Commercial Tax Officer could not decline to consider a refund claim under a Government Order merely because the assessment had become final, since the Order created a duty to examine claims satisfying its conditions. Refusal to perform that duty was correctable under Article 226, and mandamus-like relief was maintainable for fresh disposal of the refund application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128272</link>
      <description>Cloth manufactured on power-looms was not brought within the additional sales tax imposed by Act XX of 1954, because that provision, on its terms, applied only to mill cloth and could not be expanded by an executive press note; the retrospective amendment in Act III of 1956 was what extended the levy to power-loom cloth. A Commercial Tax Officer could not decline to consider a refund claim under a Government Order merely because the assessment had become final, since the Order created a duty to examine claims satisfying its conditions. Refusal to perform that duty was correctable under Article 226, and mandamus-like relief was maintainable for fresh disposal of the refund application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>