<?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>1962 (4) TMI 88 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128815</link>
    <description>Sales to registered dealers were made while valid registration certificates were in force, so later cancellation could not retrospectively defeat exemption. Alleged defects in declaration forms were held not fatal: failure to strike out alternatives and omission of the date below the signature did not invalidate the prescribed forms. The Court also stated that a taxing authority&#039;s erroneous refusal of a statutory deduction is a jurisdictional error that may be corrected under Article 227. The Board&#039;s inconsistent departure from its own prior view was treated as arbitrary and contrary to natural justice, and the exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:39:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (4) TMI 88 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128815</link>
      <description>Sales to registered dealers were made while valid registration certificates were in force, so later cancellation could not retrospectively defeat exemption. Alleged defects in declaration forms were held not fatal: failure to strike out alternatives and omission of the date below the signature did not invalidate the prescribed forms. The Court also stated that a taxing authority&#039;s erroneous refusal of a statutory deduction is a jurisdictional error that may be corrected under Article 227. The Board&#039;s inconsistent departure from its own prior view was treated as arbitrary and contrary to natural justice, and the exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>