<?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>1977 (12) TMI 128 -  HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152285</link>
    <description>Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act applies only when the relevant goods are exempt from State tax generally; it does not apply where the exemption is confined to specified circumstances or conditional features. The Court treated the concession period, Industries Department registration, identification of eligible industries, and genuineness certificate as descriptive or procedural matters that did not limit the substantive exemption. It further held that a State notification could not regulate Central sales tax liability through a clause denying the Central sales tax holiday, since the State lacked competence over Central sales tax. The notification and incentive rule therefore did not fall within the explanation to section 8(2A), and Central sales tax was not payable on the inter-State turnover for the assessment year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:18:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (12) TMI 128 -  HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152285</link>
      <description>Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act applies only when the relevant goods are exempt from State tax generally; it does not apply where the exemption is confined to specified circumstances or conditional features. The Court treated the concession period, Industries Department registration, identification of eligible industries, and genuineness certificate as descriptive or procedural matters that did not limit the substantive exemption. It further held that a State notification could not regulate Central sales tax liability through a clause denying the Central sales tax holiday, since the State lacked competence over Central sales tax. The notification and incentive rule therefore did not fall within the explanation to section 8(2A), and Central sales tax was not payable on the inter-State turnover for the assessment year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>