<?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>1993 (6) TMI 237 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157620</link>
    <description>Rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 requires both registration with the Cottage and Small Scale Industries Department and compliance with the prescribed investment ceiling, so the sales tax authority must independently verify whether investment in plant and machinery exceeds the limit; the S.S.I. registration certificate is not conclusive. A water treatment plant used at stages of the manufacturing process was held includible in plant and machinery because the project materials showed use in production, not merely for drinking water, and its cost pushed investment beyond the ceiling. The challenge based on breach of natural justice also failed, as no denial of hearing was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:07:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (6) TMI 237 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157620</link>
      <description>Rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 requires both registration with the Cottage and Small Scale Industries Department and compliance with the prescribed investment ceiling, so the sales tax authority must independently verify whether investment in plant and machinery exceeds the limit; the S.S.I. registration certificate is not conclusive. A water treatment plant used at stages of the manufacturing process was held includible in plant and machinery because the project materials showed use in production, not merely for drinking water, and its cost pushed investment beyond the ceiling. The challenge based on breach of natural justice also failed, as no denial of hearing was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>