Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
