<?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 (9) TMI 733 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161959</link>
    <description>An order imposing interest on a disputed tax liability was treated as appealable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 where the dealer contested liability itself, as the statutory scheme allowed appeals against orders of the assessing authority except those under section 10-A. The Court also held that interest under section 8(1) could not be levied on excess tax deposited by mistake and later adjusted, because the payment was recoverable on restitutionary principles under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and was not money lawfully outstanding against the dealer. The levy of interest was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:02:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 733 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161959</link>
      <description>An order imposing interest on a disputed tax liability was treated as appealable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 where the dealer contested liability itself, as the statutory scheme allowed appeals against orders of the assessing authority except those under section 10-A. The Court also held that interest under section 8(1) could not be levied on excess tax deposited by mistake and later adjusted, because the payment was recoverable on restitutionary principles under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and was not money lawfully outstanding against the dealer. The levy of interest was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>