<?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>2007 (2) TMI 594 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162940</link>
    <description>Cancellation of an eligibility certificate under section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held unjustified where the assessee had disclosed the purchase and transfer of the pouch sealing machine in the original exemption proceedings and the authority was aware of that fact. The power to withdraw the benefit was described as discretionary and confined to cases of misuse, breach of conditions, or another legally sustainable ground; it could not be used to reopen a conscious earlier decision merely because a different view was later taken. The long delay in initiating the proceedings after expiry of the exemption period also made the exercise of power improper on the facts. The revision succeeded for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:49:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 594 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162940</link>
      <description>Cancellation of an eligibility certificate under section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held unjustified where the assessee had disclosed the purchase and transfer of the pouch sealing machine in the original exemption proceedings and the authority was aware of that fact. The power to withdraw the benefit was described as discretionary and confined to cases of misuse, breach of conditions, or another legally sustainable ground; it could not be used to reopen a conscious earlier decision merely because a different view was later taken. The long delay in initiating the proceedings after expiry of the exemption period also made the exercise of power improper on the facts. The revision succeeded for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>