<?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 102 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150939</link>
    <description>Sales tax rebate under section 13(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act depended on strict compliance with the statutory mode and timing of payment under section 13(2) and rule 36. The rule prescribed recognised methods of payment, including a crossed cheque drawn in favour of the Treasury Officer on the specified bank branch, and entitlement to the rebate arose only if those requirements were met exactly. Mere tender of a cheque, where the payment did not conform to the prescribed mode, did not satisfy the statutory condition, and subsequent delay by the collecting authority in encashing the cheque did not cure the defect. The rebate was therefore not admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:48:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (1) TMI 102 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150939</link>
      <description>Sales tax rebate under section 13(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act depended on strict compliance with the statutory mode and timing of payment under section 13(2) and rule 36. The rule prescribed recognised methods of payment, including a crossed cheque drawn in favour of the Treasury Officer on the specified bank branch, and entitlement to the rebate arose only if those requirements were met exactly. Mere tender of a cheque, where the payment did not conform to the prescribed mode, did not satisfy the statutory condition, and subsequent delay by the collecting authority in encashing the cheque did not cure the defect. The rebate was therefore not admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>