<?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>1979 (1) TMI 214 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152349</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendment of a sales tax registration certificate is not available merely because a dealer later seeks to add goods for resale; it requires an error or omission in the original certificate inconsistent with the registration order. Here, cement was excluded when registration was granted because there was then no intrastate purchase of cement, so the certificate correctly reflected the order and contained no clerical or inadvertent mistake. The later request arose from a change in purchasing pattern, not from any defect in the original grant. Retrospective inclusion of cement was therefore refused, and the writ petition was summarily rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:56:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (1) TMI 214 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152349</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendment of a sales tax registration certificate is not available merely because a dealer later seeks to add goods for resale; it requires an error or omission in the original certificate inconsistent with the registration order. Here, cement was excluded when registration was granted because there was then no intrastate purchase of cement, so the certificate correctly reflected the order and contained no clerical or inadvertent mistake. The later request arose from a change in purchasing pattern, not from any defect in the original grant. Retrospective inclusion of cement was therefore refused, and the writ petition was summarily rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>