<?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 140 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152549</link>
    <description>A retrospective sales tax amendment and validating provision can preserve past levies and collections despite an earlier judgment in favour of the assessee. The court noted that the later Haryana legislation repealed the earlier regime, expanded the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; retrospectively, and deeming prior action valid under the new Act. Applying the principle that a validating enactment may neutralise the effect of a prior judicial pronouncement, it held that the earlier ruling on employee supplies did not sustain a refund claim for tax already paid. The refund claim was therefore defeated and the petition dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:51:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 140 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152549</link>
      <description>A retrospective sales tax amendment and validating provision can preserve past levies and collections despite an earlier judgment in favour of the assessee. The court noted that the later Haryana legislation repealed the earlier regime, expanded the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; retrospectively, and deeming prior action valid under the new Act. Applying the principle that a validating enactment may neutralise the effect of a prior judicial pronouncement, it held that the earlier ruling on employee supplies did not sustain a refund claim for tax already paid. The refund claim was therefore defeated and the petition dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>