<?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>1972 (5) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150600</link>
    <description>Rectification increasing tax liability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act requires prior notice and a reasonable hearing, even where the correction concerns a recognition certificate before final assessment. However, writ relief is unavailable merely to preserve an incorrect legal position. A recognition certificate under rule 25-A takes effect only from its date of issue, not from the application date, because the statutory concession applies only to dealers holding an effective certificate. Rule 25-A(5) does not violate article 14, as the prescribed procedure contains safeguards against arbitrary discrimination. The correction restoring the position mandated by the Act and Rules therefore warranted no interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 12:42:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (5) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150600</link>
      <description>Rectification increasing tax liability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act requires prior notice and a reasonable hearing, even where the correction concerns a recognition certificate before final assessment. However, writ relief is unavailable merely to preserve an incorrect legal position. A recognition certificate under rule 25-A takes effect only from its date of issue, not from the application date, because the statutory concession applies only to dealers holding an effective certificate. Rule 25-A(5) does not violate article 14, as the prescribed procedure contains safeguards against arbitrary discrimination. The correction restoring the position mandated by the Act and Rules therefore warranted no interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>