<?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>1996 (10) TMI 458 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159321</link>
    <description>A statutory registration scheme requires the registering authority to verify the truth and correctness of the application materials and to determine the applicant&#039;s true business character on objective satisfaction, rather than accepting the stated description blindly. Registration under section 26(5) is a quasi-judicial exercise, so registration may be granted in the character disclosed by the facts. The provisional certificate rules were read as a unified scheme: a provisional certificate cannot survive once the dealer becomes registered, and the retrospective amendment to rule 28 was treated as clarificatory because that position was regarded as always implicit in the rules. Promissory estoppel was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:30:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 458 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159321</link>
      <description>A statutory registration scheme requires the registering authority to verify the truth and correctness of the application materials and to determine the applicant&#039;s true business character on objective satisfaction, rather than accepting the stated description blindly. Registration under section 26(5) is a quasi-judicial exercise, so registration may be granted in the character disclosed by the facts. The provisional certificate rules were read as a unified scheme: a provisional certificate cannot survive once the dealer becomes registered, and the retrospective amendment to rule 28 was treated as clarificatory because that position was regarded as always implicit in the rules. Promissory estoppel was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>