<?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>1967 (2) TMI 87 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145190</link>
    <description>Excess tax refundable under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be adjusted against amounts due under the Mysore Sales Tax Act under the proviso to rule 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The adjustment power was confined to excess tax refundable under the State Act and liabilities arising under that same Act. Because the refund and the demand arose under different taxing statutes, the two levies were treated as distinct and the rule did not authorise cross-adjustment absent express statutory permission. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund of the excess amount, and the State sales tax demand had to be recomputed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:13:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (2) TMI 87 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145190</link>
      <description>Excess tax refundable under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be adjusted against amounts due under the Mysore Sales Tax Act under the proviso to rule 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The adjustment power was confined to excess tax refundable under the State Act and liabilities arising under that same Act. Because the refund and the demand arose under different taxing statutes, the two levies were treated as distinct and the rule did not authorise cross-adjustment absent express statutory permission. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund of the excess amount, and the State sales tax demand had to be recomputed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>