<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (5) TMI 305 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105547</link>
    <description>Sales tax exemption under the Bihar industrial incentive scheme required strict compliance with the notification conditions issued under section 7(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The amended notification extended the benefit only to units that had obtained prior permission before the cut-off date, and such permission was subject to consideration by the competent authority rather than being automatic. As the units had commenced production without securing prior permission, they could not claim the exemption, and their delay in seeking judicial relief also disentitled them to discretionary intervention. The Court declined to grant relief under Articles 226 or 142 or to remand the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 305 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105547</link>
      <description>Sales tax exemption under the Bihar industrial incentive scheme required strict compliance with the notification conditions issued under section 7(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The amended notification extended the benefit only to units that had obtained prior permission before the cut-off date, and such permission was subject to consideration by the competent authority rather than being automatic. As the units had commenced production without securing prior permission, they could not claim the exemption, and their delay in seeking judicial relief also disentitled them to discretionary intervention. The Court declined to grant relief under Articles 226 or 142 or to remand the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>