<?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>1978 (11) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152346</link>
    <description>A civil suit seeking refund of sales tax was barred because the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 provided a complete statutory hierarchy of appeal and revision, and expressly excluded suits to set aside or modify assessments. Since the refund claim depended on first treating the assessment orders as erroneous, that issue had to be pursued within the Act&#039;s own machinery, not in civil court. The existence of refund procedures under the Act further supported the legislative scheme. An assessment made by a competent authority within jurisdiction remained protected from civil challenge even if alleged to be erroneous, and the suit for refund was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:28:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152346</link>
      <description>A civil suit seeking refund of sales tax was barred because the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 provided a complete statutory hierarchy of appeal and revision, and expressly excluded suits to set aside or modify assessments. Since the refund claim depended on first treating the assessment orders as erroneous, that issue had to be pursued within the Act&#039;s own machinery, not in civil court. The existence of refund procedures under the Act further supported the legislative scheme. An assessment made by a competent authority within jurisdiction remained protected from civil challenge even if alleged to be erroneous, and the suit for refund was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>