<?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 (5) TMI 915 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260041</link>
    <description>Interest on a refundable tax amount accrues from the date the department receives the first appellate order directing refund, where that order is later affirmed. The refund-bar provision was treated as inapplicable to postpone interest merely because the department later sought to deny refund on the ground that the burden had been passed on to customers. The appellate authority had already found the penalty unjustified and recorded that the excess collection had been returned through credit notes, so the adjustment of the amount against penalty was treated as part of the refund for interest purposes. The department&#039;s later refusal did not delay commencement of interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2015 16:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 915 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260041</link>
      <description>Interest on a refundable tax amount accrues from the date the department receives the first appellate order directing refund, where that order is later affirmed. The refund-bar provision was treated as inapplicable to postpone interest merely because the department later sought to deny refund on the ground that the burden had been passed on to customers. The appellate authority had already found the penalty unjustified and recorded that the excess collection had been returned through credit notes, so the adjustment of the amount against penalty was treated as part of the refund for interest purposes. The department&#039;s later refusal did not delay commencement of interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>