<?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>2003 (4) TMI 519 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161562</link>
    <description>An eligibility certificate issued under rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 could not be reopened, reviewed, modified, or corrected years later in the absence of an express statutory power. The only remedy for any error in the certificate was the appeal provided under rule 28A(5)(f), and that remedy was not pursued within limitation. Because the petitioner had already enjoyed the exemption benefits and the governing Act and Rules contained no provision authorising belated correction, the request for a higher exemption limit and longer exemption period was untenable and the refusal to revise the certificate was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:42:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 519 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161562</link>
      <description>An eligibility certificate issued under rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 could not be reopened, reviewed, modified, or corrected years later in the absence of an express statutory power. The only remedy for any error in the certificate was the appeal provided under rule 28A(5)(f), and that remedy was not pursued within limitation. Because the petitioner had already enjoyed the exemption benefits and the governing Act and Rules contained no provision authorising belated correction, the request for a higher exemption limit and longer exemption period was untenable and the refusal to revise the certificate was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>