https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105404 For exemption under section 4A and the 21 February 1997 notification, a company's industrial undertaking could comprise multiple units, so a joint application was maintainable and qualifying fixed capital investment was not confined to one physical unit. A belated application did not bar consideration altogether; it only limited the exemption period from the date of application to the end of the notified period. The existence of stay orders could prevent a finding of tax arrears for the covered period, but final entitlement to an eligibility certificate still required factual verification by the competent authority. The High Court's direct directions for issuance and reimbursement were unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105404 For exemption under section 4A and the 21 February 1997 notification, a company's industrial undertaking could comprise multiple units, so a joint application was maintainable and qualifying fixed capital investment was not confined to one physical unit. A belated application did not bar consideration altogether; it only limited the exemption period from the date of application to the end of the notified period. The existence of stay orders could prevent a finding of tax arrears for the covered period, but final entitlement to an eligibility certificate still required factual verification by the competent authority. The High Court's direct directions for issuance and reimbursement were unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105404