Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, having previously availed full excise exemption under Clause 5(a) as a new unit, cannot claim further exemption under Clause 5(b) for a subsequent substantial expansion within the ten-year period; an existing unit's expansion relief (triggered only for expansion of not less than 25% of fixed capital) is distinct from the full-investment benefit accorded to a new unit, and the two benefits cannot be compounded. The court rejected a promissory-estoppel plea, noting the petitioner received the notified benefit and that fiscal exemption notifications are to be strictly construed in favour of revenue; no interference was warranted.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, having previously availed full excise exemption under Clause 5(a) as a new unit, cannot claim further exemption under Clause 5(b) for a subsequent substantial expansion within the ten-year period; an existing unit's expansion relief (triggered only for expansion of not less than 25% of fixed capital) is distinct from the full-investment benefit accorded to a new unit, and the two benefits cannot be compounded. The court rejected a promissory-estoppel plea, noting the petitioner received the notified benefit and that fiscal exemption notifications are to be strictly construed in favour of revenue; no interference was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
