<?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 (12) TMI 742 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447058</link>
    <description>Once a refund order had already determined the excess tax payable to the assessee, the refund authority could not reopen the matter by issuing a fresh notice and re-quantifying the refund while processing the same application. In the absence of any provision authorising re-adjudication or revision of its own completed refund order, the impugned notice was beyond jurisdiction. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund of the amount already determined, together with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2024 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 742 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447058</link>
      <description>Once a refund order had already determined the excess tax payable to the assessee, the refund authority could not reopen the matter by issuing a fresh notice and re-quantifying the refund while processing the same application. In the absence of any provision authorising re-adjudication or revision of its own completed refund order, the impugned notice was beyond jurisdiction. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund of the amount already determined, together with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>