<?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 (8) TMI 326 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156119</link>
    <description>Mala fides were not substantiated, because the affidavits and record negatived the allegation, so the refusal on that ground was upheld. On the pioneer unit issue, para 7 of the incentive resolution was held to require a large industrial unit going to a completely new location in a backward area, with the stated investment, employment, location and distance conditions. Those conditions were satisfied, and the decisive test was whether the unit itself was the first large-scale unit at that site. A prior closed khandsari unit did not defeat the claim, because the new industrial alcohol project was treated as a distinct first-time unit at the location and entitled to pioneer benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:24:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 326 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156119</link>
      <description>Mala fides were not substantiated, because the affidavits and record negatived the allegation, so the refusal on that ground was upheld. On the pioneer unit issue, para 7 of the incentive resolution was held to require a large industrial unit going to a completely new location in a backward area, with the stated investment, employment, location and distance conditions. Those conditions were satisfied, and the decisive test was whether the unit itself was the first large-scale unit at that site. A prior closed khandsari unit did not defeat the claim, because the new industrial alcohol project was treated as a distinct first-time unit at the location and entitled to pioneer benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>