<?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>2005 (11) TMI 459 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163409</link>
    <description>A tax levy on processing and supply of photographs, having already been declared invalid, could not sustain the related assessment orders, which were quashed. Consequential refund would ordinarily follow once invalid assessments are set aside, but only on satisfactory proof that the tax was actually paid into the State coffers. The claim was treated as made within a reasonable time after the invalidity declaration and was not barred by laches. The plea of unjust enrichment was rejected because similarly placed dealers had been granted refund and the State showed no basis for differential treatment, though refund still depended on proof of payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:37:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 459 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163409</link>
      <description>A tax levy on processing and supply of photographs, having already been declared invalid, could not sustain the related assessment orders, which were quashed. Consequential refund would ordinarily follow once invalid assessments are set aside, but only on satisfactory proof that the tax was actually paid into the State coffers. The claim was treated as made within a reasonable time after the invalidity declaration and was not barred by laches. The plea of unjust enrichment was rejected because similarly placed dealers had been granted refund and the State showed no basis for differential treatment, though refund still depended on proof of payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>