<?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>2008 (8) TMI 994 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288422</link>
    <description>An executive clarification could not override a contractual clause requiring reimbursement of sales tax actually paid on completed items of work, where the tax had been lawfully assessed on works contract turnover after deductions for labour and service charges under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The court treated the reimbursement promise as consistent with the statutory scheme and noted that the State had earlier acted on that basis. Because the later administrative clarification denied reimbursement contrary to both the contract and the statute, it was quashed and the petitioner was held entitled to reimbursement under the contract.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2020 09:56:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 994 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288422</link>
      <description>An executive clarification could not override a contractual clause requiring reimbursement of sales tax actually paid on completed items of work, where the tax had been lawfully assessed on works contract turnover after deductions for labour and service charges under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The court treated the reimbursement promise as consistent with the statutory scheme and noted that the State had earlier acted on that basis. Because the later administrative clarification denied reimbursement contrary to both the contract and the statute, it was quashed and the petitioner was held entitled to reimbursement under the contract.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>