https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274267 The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner could not withdraw from the compounding scheme for the year 2016-17 due to failure to obtain necessary licenses. The court found that the petitioner's hope for a favorable legal outcome did not constitute a supervening event under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, absolving them from the compounding scheme. The petitioner's claim was rejected, emphasizing that contractual terms cannot be unilaterally altered or modified. en-us Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274267 The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner could not withdraw from the compounding scheme for the year 2016-17 due to failure to obtain necessary licenses. The court found that the petitioner's hope for a favorable legal outcome did not constitute a supervening event under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, absolving them from the compounding scheme. The petitioner's claim was rejected, emphasizing that contractual terms cannot be unilaterally altered or modified. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274267