<?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>1990 (3) TMI 342 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156291</link>
    <description>Under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, the registering authority must either grant registration in accordance with the application, including the class or classes of goods applied for, or refuse that extent by a reasoned order after hearing; it cannot truncate the certificate to a general description such as &quot;execution of works contract&quot; without statutory basis. An amendment of registration particulars operates prospectively from the date the amendment request is received unless retrospective effect is expressly sought and supported by the statutory scheme. The original restriction was held unlawful, but retrospective amendment was not available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:53:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 342 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156291</link>
      <description>Under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, the registering authority must either grant registration in accordance with the application, including the class or classes of goods applied for, or refuse that extent by a reasoned order after hearing; it cannot truncate the certificate to a general description such as &quot;execution of works contract&quot; without statutory basis. An amendment of registration particulars operates prospectively from the date the amendment request is received unless retrospective effect is expressly sought and supported by the statutory scheme. The original restriction was held unlawful, but retrospective amendment was not available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>