<?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>1969 (2) TMI 165 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148674</link>
    <description>The article explains that, for declared goods, Central sales tax could validly apply to the inter-State sale even after the State&#039;s local levy, read with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. It further states that the refund mechanism under section 15(b), together with the State rule and Form A-4, was confined to the person who actually bore and paid the local tax, so a dealer making the subsequent inter-State sale could not claim refund if he had not paid that levy. The text also notes that an earlier final writ decision barred reopening the same issue by res judicata, and that the refund-retention scheme did not offend Articles 301 or 303.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 17:46:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (2) TMI 165 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148674</link>
      <description>The article explains that, for declared goods, Central sales tax could validly apply to the inter-State sale even after the State&#039;s local levy, read with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. It further states that the refund mechanism under section 15(b), together with the State rule and Form A-4, was confined to the person who actually bore and paid the local tax, so a dealer making the subsequent inter-State sale could not claim refund if he had not paid that levy. The text also notes that an earlier final writ decision barred reopening the same issue by res judicata, and that the refund-retention scheme did not offend Articles 301 or 303.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>