<?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>1964 (5) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192429</link>
    <description>The 10 per cent deduction from octroi refunds could not survive after the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 took effect, because the new Act&#039;s taxation scheme was exhaustive, did not authorise a tax on refund amounts, and the levy could not be supported as a fee without a valid standing order. The claimant who presented the receipted import bill and export certificate was entitled to maintain the suit, since the refund procedure recognised that claimant as the proper person to recover the full amount once the deduction was invalidated. The suit was also not time-barred, as an unauthorised deduction was not an act done under the Act for limitation protection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 19:00:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (5) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192429</link>
      <description>The 10 per cent deduction from octroi refunds could not survive after the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 took effect, because the new Act&#039;s taxation scheme was exhaustive, did not authorise a tax on refund amounts, and the levy could not be supported as a fee without a valid standing order. The claimant who presented the receipted import bill and export certificate was entitled to maintain the suit, since the refund procedure recognised that claimant as the proper person to recover the full amount once the deduction was invalidated. The suit was also not time-barred, as an unauthorised deduction was not an act done under the Act for limitation protection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>