https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260071 After tax case revisions were allowed on merits, the High Court held that it could still entertain a miscellaneous petition under its inherent powers to secure implementation of its earlier order. A deposit made under an interim order had not been refunded because the departmental order was not given effect to, and the Court held that its power to ensure complete and substantial justice does not end with pronouncement of judgment. It further noted that Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules required the assessing authority to give effect to the order and refund excess tax within the stipulated time, failing which interest became payable on delayed refund. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260071 After tax case revisions were allowed on merits, the High Court held that it could still entertain a miscellaneous petition under its inherent powers to secure implementation of its earlier order. A deposit made under an interim order had not been refunded because the departmental order was not given effect to, and the Court held that its power to ensure complete and substantial justice does not end with pronouncement of judgment. It further noted that Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules required the assessing authority to give effect to the order and refund excess tax within the stipulated time, failing which interest became payable on delayed refund. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260071