<?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>1968 (7) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148542</link>
    <description>A statutory refund of excess sales tax could not be withheld merely because review proceedings were pending, since the refund entitlement under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 arose once the prescribed conditions and time limits were met; refusal on extraneous considerations was illegal, and the withholding was quashed. The notices initiating review were also challenged as without jurisdiction, but the existence of review power was not disputed and questions about unit identity, adequacy of grounds, and bona fides were factual matters for the assessing authority; the jurisdictional challenge therefore failed, and the review proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:08:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (7) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148542</link>
      <description>A statutory refund of excess sales tax could not be withheld merely because review proceedings were pending, since the refund entitlement under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 arose once the prescribed conditions and time limits were met; refusal on extraneous considerations was illegal, and the withholding was quashed. The notices initiating review were also challenged as without jurisdiction, but the existence of review power was not disputed and questions about unit identity, adequacy of grounds, and bona fides were factual matters for the assessing authority; the jurisdictional challenge therefore failed, and the review proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>