<?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>1989 (12) TMI 331 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156039</link>
    <description>The octroi exemption notification under the Faridabad Complex Act applied only to specified industrial units meeting defined capital-investment limits, and &quot;capital investment&quot; included land, building, plant, machinery and equipment. On that basis, the unit&#039;s investment exceeded the prescribed threshold, so it did not qualify for exemption. The claim that a later television-manufacturing activity created a separate new industrial unit was rejected because the same legal entity continued, and the record also showed an earlier commencement date inconsistent with the requirement that a new unit be set up or come into production on or after 1 November 1983. The appellate authority&#039;s reliance on departmental opinion was criticised as an abdication of quasi-judicial duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:54:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 331 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156039</link>
      <description>The octroi exemption notification under the Faridabad Complex Act applied only to specified industrial units meeting defined capital-investment limits, and &quot;capital investment&quot; included land, building, plant, machinery and equipment. On that basis, the unit&#039;s investment exceeded the prescribed threshold, so it did not qualify for exemption. The claim that a later television-manufacturing activity created a separate new industrial unit was rejected because the same legal entity continued, and the record also showed an earlier commencement date inconsistent with the requirement that a new unit be set up or come into production on or after 1 November 1983. The appellate authority&#039;s reliance on departmental opinion was criticised as an abdication of quasi-judicial duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>