https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251315 A sanctioned amalgamation scheme specifying an appointed date was treated as operating from that date where the court did not fix a different effective date, so inter se transfers between the amalgamating companies during the intervening period were characterised as branch transfers and not sales exigible to tax. The commentary also notes that writ jurisdiction may not be used to halt revisional proceedings at the notice stage where the facts are complex and require fuller examination. In that context, the principle of unjust enrichment was treated as relevant to any refund or adjustment, so relief could be conditioned on whether the tax burden had been passed on to third parties. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251315 A sanctioned amalgamation scheme specifying an appointed date was treated as operating from that date where the court did not fix a different effective date, so inter se transfers between the amalgamating companies during the intervening period were characterised as branch transfers and not sales exigible to tax. The commentary also notes that writ jurisdiction may not be used to halt revisional proceedings at the notice stage where the facts are complex and require fuller examination. In that context, the principle of unjust enrichment was treated as relevant to any refund or adjustment, so relief could be conditioned on whether the tax burden had been passed on to third parties. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251315