<?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>2015 (2) TMI 884 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256884</link>
    <description>Where entry tax was found not payable and the amount had been deposited under protest, refund was payable under the statutory refund provision with interest. A prior finding that the liability was not admitted in the returns bound the parties, so the authority could not reopen that issue to deny repayment. Pendency of a separate challenge to the levy did not suspend the refund obligation where entitlement had already been finally determined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 884 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256884</link>
      <description>Where entry tax was found not payable and the amount had been deposited under protest, refund was payable under the statutory refund provision with interest. A prior finding that the liability was not admitted in the returns bound the parties, so the authority could not reopen that issue to deny repayment. Pendency of a separate challenge to the levy did not suspend the refund obligation where entitlement had already been finally determined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>