<?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 (7) TMI 670 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162119</link>
    <description>An appellate order setting aside a penalty and directing refund created an enforceable right to restitution in favour of the dealer. A refund could not be withheld merely because suo motu revision proceedings were under consideration, especially when no revision order was then in force. The refusal to refund was therefore unsustainable, and the dealer was entitled to refund with interest as permissible in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:14:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 670 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162119</link>
      <description>An appellate order setting aside a penalty and directing refund created an enforceable right to restitution in favour of the dealer. A refund could not be withheld merely because suo motu revision proceedings were under consideration, especially when no revision order was then in force. The refusal to refund was therefore unsustainable, and the dealer was entitled to refund with interest as permissible in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>