<?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>2005 (8) TMI 631 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162240</link>
    <description>Where entitlement to an eligibility certificate and tax holiday is finally determined only by a later retrospective order, limitation for consequential reopening of assessment runs from that crystallising adjudication and not from the earlier pendency of the claim. The assessee&#039;s application for reopening, made promptly after the competent authority allowed the benefit in 2002 with effect from 5 January 1993, was therefore not time-barred. The Tribunal&#039;s approach of treating the passage of six years as decisive was rejected because it ignored the binding effect of the later order that created the enforceable right to seek reopening for the relevant three-year period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:12:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 631 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162240</link>
      <description>Where entitlement to an eligibility certificate and tax holiday is finally determined only by a later retrospective order, limitation for consequential reopening of assessment runs from that crystallising adjudication and not from the earlier pendency of the claim. The assessee&#039;s application for reopening, made promptly after the competent authority allowed the benefit in 2002 with effect from 5 January 1993, was therefore not time-barred. The Tribunal&#039;s approach of treating the passage of six years as decisive was rejected because it ignored the binding effect of the later order that created the enforceable right to seek reopening for the relevant three-year period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>