<?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>2012 (8) TMI 888 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168162</link>
    <description>Section 54 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 provides a complete mechanism for tax deduction from payments to works contractors, including an application for a certificate of no deduction or deduction at a lower rate. Although the Explanation to section 54 does not authorise deduction on the value of certain inter-State, outside-State, or import sales, the proper course is still to pursue the statutory certificate procedure under sub-section (5). A writ petition seeking only refund of allegedly illegally collected tax was described as ordinarily not maintainable, with civil suit remaining the appropriate remedy. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was also held not to assist the petitioner against the State in the stated circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:59:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 888 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168162</link>
      <description>Section 54 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 provides a complete mechanism for tax deduction from payments to works contractors, including an application for a certificate of no deduction or deduction at a lower rate. Although the Explanation to section 54 does not authorise deduction on the value of certain inter-State, outside-State, or import sales, the proper course is still to pursue the statutory certificate procedure under sub-section (5). A writ petition seeking only refund of allegedly illegally collected tax was described as ordinarily not maintainable, with civil suit remaining the appropriate remedy. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was also held not to assist the petitioner against the State in the stated circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>