<?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 (3) TMI 119 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276904</link>
    <description>Successor State liability under Article 295(2) extended to a refund claim for export duty paid in advance to the former State of Dholpur, because the merger covenants preserved existing laws and transferred assets and liabilities to the new State of Rajasthan. The continued operation of the pre-Constitution law, together with the covenantal provisions and the relevant administrative ordinance, showed an intention to recognise rights arising under that law and to assume the corresponding liabilities. The claim was therefore not defeated by any displacement of the liability through competent law, and the refund remained maintainable against the successor State.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:41:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (3) TMI 119 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276904</link>
      <description>Successor State liability under Article 295(2) extended to a refund claim for export duty paid in advance to the former State of Dholpur, because the merger covenants preserved existing laws and transferred assets and liabilities to the new State of Rajasthan. The continued operation of the pre-Constitution law, together with the covenantal provisions and the relevant administrative ordinance, showed an intention to recognise rights arising under that law and to assume the corresponding liabilities. The claim was therefore not defeated by any displacement of the liability through competent law, and the refund remained maintainable against the successor State.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>