<?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>2023 (3) TMI 796 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435410</link>
    <description>Form E-24 notices for alleged short payment of Odisha entry tax were held unsustainable where the statutory scrutiny process under Section 7 and Rule 10 had not been followed, because the demand mechanism could be used only after scrutiny of returns and detection of a payable shortfall. The revisional order affirming those notices was also set aside. On interest, Section 7(5) was not applied as statutory default interest for the pre-28.03.2017 period because the unpaid balance was retained under interim judicial protection and the liability was under active challenge. The Court nevertheless indicated that the State could be compensated by simple interest on the withheld amount for the period of deprivation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 10:15:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 796 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435410</link>
      <description>Form E-24 notices for alleged short payment of Odisha entry tax were held unsustainable where the statutory scrutiny process under Section 7 and Rule 10 had not been followed, because the demand mechanism could be used only after scrutiny of returns and detection of a payable shortfall. The revisional order affirming those notices was also set aside. On interest, Section 7(5) was not applied as statutory default interest for the pre-28.03.2017 period because the unpaid balance was retained under interim judicial protection and the liability was under active challenge. The Court nevertheless indicated that the State could be compensated by simple interest on the withheld amount for the period of deprivation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>