<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1041 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195701</link>
    <description>A final eligibility certificate under a tax incentive scheme could not be retrospectively reduced after the beneficiary had already exhausted the exemption and altered its commercial position. The court noted that although an erroneously granted certificate may be corrected in appropriate cases, such correction must occur within a reasonable time and before irreversible reliance is created. In the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or a clear explanation for the alleged mistake, the amended certificate and consequential demand could not be sustained. Amounts deposited during writ proceedings under a protective arrangement were required to be refunded with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:13:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1041 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195701</link>
      <description>A final eligibility certificate under a tax incentive scheme could not be retrospectively reduced after the beneficiary had already exhausted the exemption and altered its commercial position. The court noted that although an erroneously granted certificate may be corrected in appropriate cases, such correction must occur within a reasonable time and before irreversible reliance is created. In the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or a clear explanation for the alleged mistake, the amended certificate and consequential demand could not be sustained. Amounts deposited during writ proceedings under a protective arrangement were required to be refunded with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>