<?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>1998 (2) TMI 574 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160233</link>
    <description>Where a notification conditions rejection of an exemption application on affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, refusal without notice or show-cause opportunity is procedurally invalid and cannot stand. The later corrected certificate, confirming the relevant production date within the notified period, could be considered because the delay arose from administrative process rather than the applicant&#039;s fault; the exemption claim therefore required fresh reconsideration in light of the corrected record. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ relief where the petition had already been entertained and affidavits exchanged. The impugned rejection was quashed and the authority was directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:11:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 574 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160233</link>
      <description>Where a notification conditions rejection of an exemption application on affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, refusal without notice or show-cause opportunity is procedurally invalid and cannot stand. The later corrected certificate, confirming the relevant production date within the notified period, could be considered because the delay arose from administrative process rather than the applicant&#039;s fault; the exemption claim therefore required fresh reconsideration in light of the corrected record. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ relief where the petition had already been entertained and affidavits exchanged. The impugned rejection was quashed and the authority was directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>