<?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>2022 (8) TMI 665 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426426</link>
    <description>A writ court will not rewrite or relax the terms of a Government incentive scheme to grant a benefit dependent on strict compliance with its filing conditions. The petitioner&#039;s claim under the Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010 was rejected for failure to upload the application online within the prescribed time, and the alleged technical glitches were treated as disputed questions of fact unsupported by evidence and unsuitable for determination under Article 226. No legal infirmity, arbitrariness, breach of natural justice, jurisdictional error, perversity, or discrimination was shown, so interference with the rejection was declined and the incentive claim was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 08:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 665 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426426</link>
      <description>A writ court will not rewrite or relax the terms of a Government incentive scheme to grant a benefit dependent on strict compliance with its filing conditions. The petitioner&#039;s claim under the Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010 was rejected for failure to upload the application online within the prescribed time, and the alleged technical glitches were treated as disputed questions of fact unsupported by evidence and unsuitable for determination under Article 226. No legal infirmity, arbitrariness, breach of natural justice, jurisdictional error, perversity, or discrimination was shown, so interference with the rejection was declined and the incentive claim was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>