<?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>2011 (9) TMI 969 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173611</link>
    <description>An order refusing amendment of an eligibility certificate to add new goods is treated as a refusal of eligibility for those goods in substance. Section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held broad enough to cover an appeal against such refusal, because denying appellate remedy would leave the assessee without a statutory forum and undermine the provision&#039;s purpose. The appeal was therefore maintainable, and the contrary view of the Tribunal was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:42:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 969 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173611</link>
      <description>An order refusing amendment of an eligibility certificate to add new goods is treated as a refusal of eligibility for those goods in substance. Section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held broad enough to cover an appeal against such refusal, because denying appellate remedy would leave the assessee without a statutory forum and undermine the provision&#039;s purpose. The appeal was therefore maintainable, and the contrary view of the Tribunal was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>