<?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>1983 (12) TMI 267 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154156</link>
    <description>An exemption certificate issued under a sales tax exemption scheme could not be treated as invalid in assessment proceedings merely because the renewal application was filed late, so long as the certificate had not been lawfully cancelled or set aside. The Court treated the renewal-time limit as regulatory rather than jurisdictional: a delay in filing did not nullify an exemption certificate already granted, and the assessing authority had to respect it until displaced in proper proceedings. Rule 12&#039;s 30-day renewal period was held directory, not mandatory, because it was meant to regulate exemption administration and not to defeat the exemption once renewal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2013 15:33:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 267 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154156</link>
      <description>An exemption certificate issued under a sales tax exemption scheme could not be treated as invalid in assessment proceedings merely because the renewal application was filed late, so long as the certificate had not been lawfully cancelled or set aside. The Court treated the renewal-time limit as regulatory rather than jurisdictional: a delay in filing did not nullify an exemption certificate already granted, and the assessing authority had to respect it until displaced in proper proceedings. Rule 12&#039;s 30-day renewal period was held directory, not mandatory, because it was meant to regulate exemption administration and not to defeat the exemption once renewal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>