<?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>2015 (1) TMI 379 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255180</link>
    <description>A writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy because availability of appeal is only a self-imposed restraint on writ jurisdiction, not an absolute bar, especially where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction and arbitrary. After an eligibility certificate was issued under the incentive scheme, the sales tax authority could not independently refuse or withhold amendment of the corresponding entitlement certificate by re-examining whether the activity amounted to manufacture; that issue could be considered, if at all, at the assessment stage. The refusal to issue the addenda was quashed, and amendment of the entitlement certificate with rescheduling of the incentive period was directed in conformity with the amended eligibility certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 379 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255180</link>
      <description>A writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy because availability of appeal is only a self-imposed restraint on writ jurisdiction, not an absolute bar, especially where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction and arbitrary. After an eligibility certificate was issued under the incentive scheme, the sales tax authority could not independently refuse or withhold amendment of the corresponding entitlement certificate by re-examining whether the activity amounted to manufacture; that issue could be considered, if at all, at the assessment stage. The refusal to issue the addenda was quashed, and amendment of the entitlement certificate with rescheduling of the incentive period was directed in conformity with the amended eligibility certificate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>