<?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>2004 (5) TMI 528 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127983</link>
    <description>A pre-reorganisation sales tax exemption notification issued under the Bihar Finance Act was held to survive the creation of Jharkhand under the Bihar Re-organisation Act, because the successor-state provisions preserved existing laws unless lawfully altered, repealed or amended. The notification qualified as a continuing &quot;law&quot; and therefore remained operative in Jharkhand for eligible units. Territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court was also sustained where part of the cause of action arose from the Bihar notification and the successor State participated without pressing a jurisdictional objection. The exemption could not be denied merely because bifurcation changed the transactions&#039; character or because a later Jharkhand industrial policy did not repeat the earlier benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 528 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127983</link>
      <description>A pre-reorganisation sales tax exemption notification issued under the Bihar Finance Act was held to survive the creation of Jharkhand under the Bihar Re-organisation Act, because the successor-state provisions preserved existing laws unless lawfully altered, repealed or amended. The notification qualified as a continuing &quot;law&quot; and therefore remained operative in Jharkhand for eligible units. Territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court was also sustained where part of the cause of action arose from the Bihar notification and the successor State participated without pressing a jurisdictional objection. The exemption could not be denied merely because bifurcation changed the transactions&#039; character or because a later Jharkhand industrial policy did not repeat the earlier benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>