<?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>1995 (3) TMI 432 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157789</link>
    <description>A taxing authority cannot refuse an authorisation certificate under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1986 by re-adjudicating entitlement already reserved to the prescribed certifying authority, and the refusal was held unlawful. Sales tax exemption on finished goods under the exemption notification had to be tested against the statutory conditions for a new industrial unit, so the demand raised without that inquiry could not stand. A refund claim for tax paid on raw materials likewise had to be examined under the reimbursement conditions in the Act and could not be rejected merely because concession entitlement had been denied elsewhere. The impugned order was quashed and fresh consideration was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 432 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157789</link>
      <description>A taxing authority cannot refuse an authorisation certificate under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1986 by re-adjudicating entitlement already reserved to the prescribed certifying authority, and the refusal was held unlawful. Sales tax exemption on finished goods under the exemption notification had to be tested against the statutory conditions for a new industrial unit, so the demand raised without that inquiry could not stand. A refund claim for tax paid on raw materials likewise had to be examined under the reimbursement conditions in the Act and could not be rejected merely because concession entitlement had been denied elsewhere. The impugned order was quashed and fresh consideration was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>