https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404483 Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting a patent error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue matters already decided; the court found no such error and rejected the review challenge. In construing the subsidy rules, the term "Swami" was given a purposive meaning to include the licencee or occupier running the cinema hall or multiplex, not only the title owner, so the eligibility challenge failed. The deletion of the 10-kilometre rider in Rule 3 was treated as a relaxation of an eligibility restriction, allowing the remaining subsidy benefit to continue for otherwise eligible units already operating before the amendment. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:43:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404483 Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting a patent error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue matters already decided; the court found no such error and rejected the review challenge. In construing the subsidy rules, the term "Swami" was given a purposive meaning to include the licencee or occupier running the cinema hall or multiplex, not only the title owner, so the eligibility challenge failed. The deletion of the 10-kilometre rider in Rule 3 was treated as a relaxation of an eligibility restriction, allowing the remaining subsidy benefit to continue for otherwise eligible units already operating before the amendment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404483