Charity-run tree plantation and maintenance for environmental preservation qualifies as "charitable activity", making supplies GST-exempt under Notifi...
Drawings/designs supply and erection supervision fees from German contractor: designs non-taxable; supervision taxed as FTS/PE depending on six-month ...
Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.