<?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 (10) TMI 225 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157462</link>
    <description>The notification dated 8 March 1988 exempted sales of products manufactured in Rajasthan by khadi and village industries institutions financed by the Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board or the Commission. The petitioner-society, engaged in manufacture and sale of bricks and lime, was shown to be financed by the Board and therefore fell within the notified class. The State&#039;s contention that only societies registered under the Societies Registration Act were intended to benefit was not pleaded in its reply and could not support the exclusion. The exclusion of the petitioner from the exemption was consequently unjustified and discriminatory, and the petitioner was treated as entitled to the exemption and to claim refund of tax, if paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:23:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 225 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157462</link>
      <description>The notification dated 8 March 1988 exempted sales of products manufactured in Rajasthan by khadi and village industries institutions financed by the Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board or the Commission. The petitioner-society, engaged in manufacture and sale of bricks and lime, was shown to be financed by the Board and therefore fell within the notified class. The State&#039;s contention that only societies registered under the Societies Registration Act were intended to benefit was not pleaded in its reply and could not support the exclusion. The exclusion of the petitioner from the exemption was consequently unjustified and discriminatory, and the petitioner was treated as entitled to the exemption and to claim refund of tax, if paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>