<?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>1997 (9) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44892</link>
    <description>A writ petition seeking refund as the sole relief is not maintainable; refund in writ jurisdiction can be granted only as a consequential relief and not as the principal or only remedy. On that basis, the refund order in the writ proceedings could not stand. The Court did not decide the defence of unjust enrichment and left the refund applications to be determined by the competent sales tax authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44892</link>
      <description>A writ petition seeking refund as the sole relief is not maintainable; refund in writ jurisdiction can be granted only as a consequential relief and not as the principal or only remedy. On that basis, the refund order in the writ proceedings could not stand. The Court did not decide the defence of unjust enrichment and left the refund applications to be determined by the competent sales tax authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>