<?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>2009 (3) TMI 1074 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282531</link>
    <description>Retrospective wage-revision arrears were sought to be included in tariff fixation for earlier tariff years, but the claim was rejected because tariff determination is a staged process and the utility had already filed and amended its petitions with knowledge of the wage revision and arrears. As the relevant cost data were available and the issue was not pursued in the original proceedings, the matter could not be reopened after the tariff orders had attained finality. The direction to recover the arrears in a later tariff period was also disapproved because it would shift the burden to a different set of consumers and was inconsistent with the tariff framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 1074 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282531</link>
      <description>Retrospective wage-revision arrears were sought to be included in tariff fixation for earlier tariff years, but the claim was rejected because tariff determination is a staged process and the utility had already filed and amended its petitions with knowledge of the wage revision and arrears. As the relevant cost data were available and the issue was not pursued in the original proceedings, the matter could not be reopened after the tariff orders had attained finality. The direction to recover the arrears in a later tariff period was also disapproved because it would shift the burden to a different set of consumers and was inconsistent with the tariff framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>