<?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>1991 (8) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42996</link>
    <description>A procedural notification could not be used to defeat a substantive exemption already earned under an earlier exemption scheme, and the assessee&#039;s eligibility under the original notification remained intact. The later notification regulated adjustment of refund, but it did not alter the underlying concession. Prior permission for refund adjustment was also treated as procedural, not substantive; where the assessee applied in time and the authority&#039;s own delay prevented timely grant, that inaction could not be relied on to deny the benefit after expiry of the year. The Court directed permission from the dates of application, quashed the demand notices, and upheld the assessee&#039;s entitlement to adjustment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 14:26:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42996</link>
      <description>A procedural notification could not be used to defeat a substantive exemption already earned under an earlier exemption scheme, and the assessee&#039;s eligibility under the original notification remained intact. The later notification regulated adjustment of refund, but it did not alter the underlying concession. Prior permission for refund adjustment was also treated as procedural, not substantive; where the assessee applied in time and the authority&#039;s own delay prevented timely grant, that inaction could not be relied on to deny the benefit after expiry of the year. The Court directed permission from the dates of application, quashed the demand notices, and upheld the assessee&#039;s entitlement to adjustment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>