<?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>1991 (2) TMI 398 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157744</link>
    <description>A revisional authority may invalidate an eligibility certificate where the original grant overlooked a mandatory disqualifying condition, and the notification&#039;s requirements remain enforceable against the applicant. The tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner could exercise suo motu revision because the grant was made by an authority within the revisional reach of the Act and the governing rule, and the direction from the prescribed authority was sufficient. It also found that use of the trade mark or brand name of an existing unit, supported by cartons, partnership documents and a royalty agreement, disqualified the industrial unit from eligibility. The notice in Form IX and the factual findings were held free from legal infirmity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 398 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157744</link>
      <description>A revisional authority may invalidate an eligibility certificate where the original grant overlooked a mandatory disqualifying condition, and the notification&#039;s requirements remain enforceable against the applicant. The tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner could exercise suo motu revision because the grant was made by an authority within the revisional reach of the Act and the governing rule, and the direction from the prescribed authority was sufficient. It also found that use of the trade mark or brand name of an existing unit, supported by cartons, partnership documents and a royalty agreement, disqualified the industrial unit from eligibility. The notice in Form IX and the factual findings were held free from legal infirmity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>