<?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>Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act permits State tax on a local sale or purchase of declared goods alongside Central sales tax on a subsequent inter-State sale. Refund of State tax under section 15(b), read with the applicable State rule and Form A-4, is confined to the person who bore and paid the local levy; a subsequent inter-State dealer who did not pay that tax cannot claim the refund, avoiding unjust enrichment. Res judicata may prevent reopening a tax issue already finally decided between the same parties in writ proceedings. The refund-and-retention mechanism is treated as part of the statutory regime for declared goods and not as a prohibited trade restriction or discrimination under Articles 301 and 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>Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act permits State tax on a local sale or purchase of declared goods alongside Central sales tax on a subsequent inter-State sale. Refund of State tax under section 15(b), read with the applicable State rule and Form A-4, is confined to the person who bore and paid the local levy; a subsequent inter-State dealer who did not pay that tax cannot claim the refund, avoiding unjust enrichment. Res judicata may prevent reopening a tax issue already finally decided between the same parties in writ proceedings. The refund-and-retention mechanism is treated as part of the statutory regime for declared goods and not as a prohibited trade restriction or discrimination under Articles 301 and 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>