<?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 (10) TMI 359 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265084</link>
    <description>A refund can be adjusted against later tax dues under section 52 only after it has been determined by the competent authority as an excess payment; an anticipated or uncrystallised refund is not available for unilateral set-off in a return or revised return. Because the assessee&#039;s entitlement to the earlier-period refund was adjudicated only later, there was no legal basis to adjust it against the subsequent period&#039;s liability when the adjustment was claimed. On that footing, the Tribunal&#039;s view that interest under section 47(4A)(b) remained payable was found to involve no legal infirmity, and the issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 359 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265084</link>
      <description>A refund can be adjusted against later tax dues under section 52 only after it has been determined by the competent authority as an excess payment; an anticipated or uncrystallised refund is not available for unilateral set-off in a return or revised return. Because the assessee&#039;s entitlement to the earlier-period refund was adjudicated only later, there was no legal basis to adjust it against the subsequent period&#039;s liability when the adjustment was claimed. On that footing, the Tribunal&#039;s view that interest under section 47(4A)(b) remained payable was found to involve no legal infirmity, and the issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>