<?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>2008 (8) TMI 866 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164641</link>
    <description>A Tribunal&#039;s rectification power under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 extends to correcting an order founded on an error of law where a levy earlier treated as ultra vires is later validated by a retrospective amendment. Once section 3AAAA was retrospectively upheld as valid, the Tribunal&#039;s earlier view that the levy was invalid ceased to be correct, and rectification was justified. The objection that the rectification application was time-barred was rejected because the retrospective amendment supplied the basis for correcting the erroneous order. The Tribunal was therefore competent to rectify its order, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:56:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 866 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164641</link>
      <description>A Tribunal&#039;s rectification power under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 extends to correcting an order founded on an error of law where a levy earlier treated as ultra vires is later validated by a retrospective amendment. Once section 3AAAA was retrospectively upheld as valid, the Tribunal&#039;s earlier view that the levy was invalid ceased to be correct, and rectification was justified. The objection that the rectification application was time-barred was rejected because the retrospective amendment supplied the basis for correcting the erroneous order. The Tribunal was therefore competent to rectify its order, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>