<?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>2017 (7) TMI 1295 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280600</link>
    <description>Declared goods purchased within a State and taxed under State sales tax, then converted into coke and sold in inter-State trade with Central Sales Tax paid, attract reimbursement of the State tax under Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On the stated facts, the tax paid on coal satisfied that condition, so reimbursement was due. A refund claim filed in the prescribed form could not be denied merely because an excess demand notice was not annexed, where the statutory entitlement to reimbursement otherwise existed. The document therefore affirms statutory reimbursement of the State tax with interest and rejects a purely procedural objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2019 06:12:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 1295 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280600</link>
      <description>Declared goods purchased within a State and taxed under State sales tax, then converted into coke and sold in inter-State trade with Central Sales Tax paid, attract reimbursement of the State tax under Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On the stated facts, the tax paid on coal satisfied that condition, so reimbursement was due. A refund claim filed in the prescribed form could not be denied merely because an excess demand notice was not annexed, where the statutory entitlement to reimbursement otherwise existed. The document therefore affirms statutory reimbursement of the State tax with interest and rejects a purely procedural objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>