<?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>2003 (1) TMI 658 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161281</link>
    <description>The court partly allowed both writ petitions, quashing the assessment orders and directing reassessment of turnover for sales tax based on prevailing rates at the time of work orders. The court held that retrospective application of tax amendments should not burden the assessee impracticably. Contractors are entitled to reimbursement of additional tax if rates are enhanced during contract execution. The amended rates with retrospective effect apply only to ongoing contracts. No costs were awarded in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:30:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 658 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161281</link>
      <description>The court partly allowed both writ petitions, quashing the assessment orders and directing reassessment of turnover for sales tax based on prevailing rates at the time of work orders. The court held that retrospective application of tax amendments should not burden the assessee impracticably. Contractors are entitled to reimbursement of additional tax if rates are enhanced during contract execution. The amended rates with retrospective effect apply only to ongoing contracts. No costs were awarded in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>