<?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>1986 (8) TMI 437 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155149</link>
    <description>Eligibility for sales tax exemption under the small-scale industrial unit notification depended on the unit meeting the notification&#039;s stated conditions, including investment limits, registration and commencement after the cut-off date. The Court held that eligibility could not be denied on grounds not found in the notification, and that borrowing from private sources was irrelevant because it was not prohibited. It further held that a unit does not become an expansion or branch of another concern merely because it manufactures goods under that concern&#039;s trade mark or under commercial arrangements. In the absence of real interdependence, unity of control, or financial and managerial integration, the petitioner&#039;s unit remained an independent small-scale unit entitled to the eligibility certificate and exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:17:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 437 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155149</link>
      <description>Eligibility for sales tax exemption under the small-scale industrial unit notification depended on the unit meeting the notification&#039;s stated conditions, including investment limits, registration and commencement after the cut-off date. The Court held that eligibility could not be denied on grounds not found in the notification, and that borrowing from private sources was irrelevant because it was not prohibited. It further held that a unit does not become an expansion or branch of another concern merely because it manufactures goods under that concern&#039;s trade mark or under commercial arrangements. In the absence of real interdependence, unity of control, or financial and managerial integration, the petitioner&#039;s unit remained an independent small-scale unit entitled to the eligibility certificate and exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>