TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the deferment of value added tax granted to a sick industrial unit under a rehabilitation scheme and the corresponding government order survived the repeal of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act in view of the saving provision in the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, and whether the impugned order withdrawing that benefit was sustainable.
Analysis: The deferment of tax was granted pursuant to a rehabilitation scheme framed for the sick unit and implemented through the government order issued under the repealed value added tax regime. Section 174 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act preserves rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accrued or incurred under the repealed enactment and also saves proceedings and orders made thereunder. The Court found that the benefit already granted under the earlier order was a saved right, and the authority issuing the impugned order had ignored the effect of the repeal and saving clause, particularly section 174(2)(c).
Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was quashed. The benefit of deferment could not be treated as extinguished merely because the value added tax statute was repealed, and the State was directed to take a fresh decision while interim protection against recovery continued.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
