<?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>1997 (10) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159185</link>
    <description>The Allahabad HC held that an order rejecting review and restricting an eligibility certificate was unsustainable where the Committee failed to consider material evidence on the existence and commencement of a lease for eligibility under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner&#039;s reliance on an earlier unregistered lease deed, a later registered deed, a supplementary deed, notarisation and rent payments had to be examined together. The absence of an express reference to the earlier deed in the registered deed did not, by itself, negate prior execution. Because relevant contentions and circumstances were not considered, the order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:17:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336061" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159185</link>
      <description>The Allahabad HC held that an order rejecting review and restricting an eligibility certificate was unsustainable where the Committee failed to consider material evidence on the existence and commencement of a lease for eligibility under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner&#039;s reliance on an earlier unregistered lease deed, a later registered deed, a supplementary deed, notarisation and rent payments had to be examined together. The absence of an express reference to the earlier deed in the registered deed did not, by itself, negate prior execution. Because relevant contentions and circumstances were not considered, the order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>