<?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>1988 (4) TMI 397 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155186</link>
    <description>A refund refusal under section 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act could not be sustained after the Supreme Court upheld the provision and overruled the earlier view treating it as ultra vires. Because the administrative order rested entirely on precedent that had later disappeared, the sales tax authority was required to reconsider the claim under the revised binding law. The refusal was therefore set aside and the refund application remitted for fresh decision according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:36:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 397 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155186</link>
      <description>A refund refusal under section 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act could not be sustained after the Supreme Court upheld the provision and overruled the earlier view treating it as ultra vires. Because the administrative order rested entirely on precedent that had later disappeared, the sales tax authority was required to reconsider the claim under the revised binding law. The refusal was therefore set aside and the refund application remitted for fresh decision according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>