<?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 (10) TMI 618 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161707</link>
    <description>An industrial incentive eligibility certificate, once validly issued and acted upon, could not be substantively rewritten by introducing a new limitation confining sales tax exemption to additional production capacity. The authorities&#039; power to correct factual error did not extend to fresh adjudication or withdrawal of accrued benefits unless a genuine mistake was shown. As no factual error was established on the record, and the investment had been made before the later notification, retrospective curtailment of the exemption was impermissible. The amended certificate and consequential demand were therefore unsustainable, and the original certificate continued to govern the petitioner&#039;s entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:39:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 618 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161707</link>
      <description>An industrial incentive eligibility certificate, once validly issued and acted upon, could not be substantively rewritten by introducing a new limitation confining sales tax exemption to additional production capacity. The authorities&#039; power to correct factual error did not extend to fresh adjudication or withdrawal of accrued benefits unless a genuine mistake was shown. As no factual error was established on the record, and the investment had been made before the later notification, retrospective curtailment of the exemption was impermissible. The amended certificate and consequential demand were therefore unsustainable, and the original certificate continued to govern the petitioner&#039;s entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>