<?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>1994 (2) TMI 280 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157432</link>
    <description>A registration certificate may be amended to delete items wrongly included outside the dealer&#039;s statutory entitlement, even where the goods are said to be used in an integrated manufacturing process. The Court treated the mill&#039;s dominant activity as manufacture of sugar and accepted that by-products such as molasses and bagasse arose in that process, but held that erroneous inclusion of goods in the original certificate could be corrected for sufficient cause. It also held that the Commissioner&#039;s delegated power to amend or cancel the certificate was validly exercised, and that notice and repeated opportunities to respond satisfied the requirement of reasonable hearing. The amendment was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:20:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (2) TMI 280 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157432</link>
      <description>A registration certificate may be amended to delete items wrongly included outside the dealer&#039;s statutory entitlement, even where the goods are said to be used in an integrated manufacturing process. The Court treated the mill&#039;s dominant activity as manufacture of sugar and accepted that by-products such as molasses and bagasse arose in that process, but held that erroneous inclusion of goods in the original certificate could be corrected for sufficient cause. It also held that the Commissioner&#039;s delegated power to amend or cancel the certificate was validly exercised, and that notice and repeated opportunities to respond satisfied the requirement of reasonable hearing. The amendment was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>