<?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>1971 (7) TMI 147 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150206</link>
    <description>A refund rule prescribing a three-month period for filing claims for tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade was upheld as intra vires because the statutory refund scheme under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 permits refund only in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed. The court distinguished a procedural limitation from a substantive condition precedent to refund and treated the filing deadline as a valid condition attached to the refund right. On the facts, the delay was also found unjustified, and discretionary interference under article 226 was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 11:44:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 147 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150206</link>
      <description>A refund rule prescribing a three-month period for filing claims for tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade was upheld as intra vires because the statutory refund scheme under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 permits refund only in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed. The court distinguished a procedural limitation from a substantive condition precedent to refund and treated the filing deadline as a valid condition attached to the refund right. On the facts, the delay was also found unjustified, and discretionary interference under article 226 was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>