<?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>2000 (7) TMI 933 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160459</link>
    <description>An exemption-scheme application had to be filed in the prescribed Form S.T. 70 with the required annexures, including the change of land use certificate, because the form and supporting documents formed mandatory statutory conditions rather than directory requirements. Non-compliance could validly justify rejection. At the same time, refusal of the application had to comply with natural justice: where the notice did not clearly communicate the hearing date and the applicant was not given a meaningful opportunity to meet the defects, the rejection and appellate affirmation were procedurally infirm and liable to be set aside for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:40:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 933 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160459</link>
      <description>An exemption-scheme application had to be filed in the prescribed Form S.T. 70 with the required annexures, including the change of land use certificate, because the form and supporting documents formed mandatory statutory conditions rather than directory requirements. Non-compliance could validly justify rejection. At the same time, refusal of the application had to comply with natural justice: where the notice did not clearly communicate the hearing date and the applicant was not given a meaningful opportunity to meet the defects, the rejection and appellate affirmation were procedurally infirm and liable to be set aside for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>