<?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>1974 (1) TMI 101 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150932</link>
    <description>A notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act could grant exemption in public interest, but it could not override the statutory refund entitlement under section 15(b) for declared goods that had already borne State tax. The notification was inconsistent with the parent Act because it made exemption depend on the dealer foregoing the refund otherwise available under the statute. As delegated legislation cannot contradict an express substantive provision of the taxing statute, the notification was unenforceable and the assessment based on it could not stand; the tax demand was set aside and the matter required reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 17:59:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (1) TMI 101 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150932</link>
      <description>A notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act could grant exemption in public interest, but it could not override the statutory refund entitlement under section 15(b) for declared goods that had already borne State tax. The notification was inconsistent with the parent Act because it made exemption depend on the dealer foregoing the refund otherwise available under the statute. As delegated legislation cannot contradict an express substantive provision of the taxing statute, the notification was unenforceable and the assessment based on it could not stand; the tax demand was set aside and the matter required reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>