<?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>1994 (1) TMI 253 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157476</link>
    <description>Retrospective sales-tax amendments may be restricted where they impose an unreasonable, unforeseen or confiscatory burden after a dealer has obtained a concluded appellate entitlement to refund. Rice bran used for oil extraction had been treated as falling within an exempt entry, and the department did not challenge that determination. Although the Haryana General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1988 retrospectively excluded rice bran from fodder, its operation could not deny refund of tax already paid where the dealer had not collected the tax. Retrospectively restoring liability in those circumstances imposed an undue burden rather than correcting an unintended benefit; refund with statutory interest was therefore available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 18:24:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 253 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157476</link>
      <description>Retrospective sales-tax amendments may be restricted where they impose an unreasonable, unforeseen or confiscatory burden after a dealer has obtained a concluded appellate entitlement to refund. Rice bran used for oil extraction had been treated as falling within an exempt entry, and the department did not challenge that determination. Although the Haryana General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1988 retrospectively excluded rice bran from fodder, its operation could not deny refund of tax already paid where the dealer had not collected the tax. Retrospectively restoring liability in those circumstances imposed an undue burden rather than correcting an unintended benefit; refund with statutory interest was therefore available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>