<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1376 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195680</link>
    <description>The exemption notification was construed as limiting refund/exemption to the period and quantity specified in the original eligibility certificate, so renewal of the Khadi authority certificate did not by itself extend the benefit beyond that original term. However, once entitlement certificates had already been granted and acted upon for the extended period, retrospective cancellation and withdrawal of the benefit was held impermissible in the absence of specific authority to cancel for breach or contravention. The construction of the notification was therefore against perpetual extension, but the already granted entitlement for the extended period was protected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:33:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1376 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195680</link>
      <description>The exemption notification was construed as limiting refund/exemption to the period and quantity specified in the original eligibility certificate, so renewal of the Khadi authority certificate did not by itself extend the benefit beyond that original term. However, once entitlement certificates had already been granted and acted upon for the extended period, retrospective cancellation and withdrawal of the benefit was held impermissible in the absence of specific authority to cancel for breach or contravention. The construction of the notification was therefore against perpetual extension, but the already granted entitlement for the extended period was protected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>