https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188994 The Commissioner's power to cancel an eligibility certificate under section 4-A(3) was confined to cases of concealment, misrepresentation, or patent error, and could not be used as a substitute for the appellate remedy where the certificate had been granted after conscious consideration of disclosed facts. Cancellation was also improper because the exemption period had substantially run out and no fraud or misuse was shown. On reconstitution of the firm, the later amendment and circular supported the view that a fresh application was not required for the remaining exemption period, so the omission to file one did not justify withdrawal of the certificate. The cancellation and appellate orders were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Dec 2016 18:35:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188994 The Commissioner's power to cancel an eligibility certificate under section 4-A(3) was confined to cases of concealment, misrepresentation, or patent error, and could not be used as a substitute for the appellate remedy where the certificate had been granted after conscious consideration of disclosed facts. Cancellation was also improper because the exemption period had substantially run out and no fraud or misuse was shown. On reconstitution of the firm, the later amendment and circular supported the view that a fresh application was not required for the remaining exemption period, so the omission to file one did not justify withdrawal of the certificate. The cancellation and appellate orders were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188994