https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157566 Rule 3(66)(iv) fixed 14 April 1983 as the final date for an eligibility certificate application, and the proviso was treated as a narrow exception for registered dealers rather than an open-ended extension. A proviso cannot enlarge the main charging or enabling provision or render the statutory time limit meaningless, so a later application filed after the prescribed date was time-barred absent any condonation power. The alleged earlier application of 25 November 1981 was also not accepted because the record did not support its filing or pending status. The result was rejection of the claim to an eligibility certificate. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Oct 2013 18:45:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157566 Rule 3(66)(iv) fixed 14 April 1983 as the final date for an eligibility certificate application, and the proviso was treated as a narrow exception for registered dealers rather than an open-ended extension. A proviso cannot enlarge the main charging or enabling provision or render the statutory time limit meaningless, so a later application filed after the prescribed date was time-barred absent any condonation power. The alleged earlier application of 25 November 1981 was also not accepted because the record did not support its filing or pending status. The result was rejection of the claim to an eligibility certificate. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 27 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157566