<?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 (2) TMI 317 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157870</link>
    <description>Acquisition of a proprietary business concern by a company did not, by itself, amount to expansion, addition or modification of an existing industrial unit for rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The exemption was intended for newly set up small-scale industrial units that had commenced production, and a going concern was not automatically an existing industrial unit for this purpose. In the absence of proof that the concern had already begun manufacturing goods for sale before takeover, and without material showing alteration or diversification of the unit, the embargo in explanation (iv) did not apply. The eligibility certificate could not be refused on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:23:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 317 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157870</link>
      <description>Acquisition of a proprietary business concern by a company did not, by itself, amount to expansion, addition or modification of an existing industrial unit for rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The exemption was intended for newly set up small-scale industrial units that had commenced production, and a going concern was not automatically an existing industrial unit for this purpose. In the absence of proof that the concern had already begun manufacturing goods for sale before takeover, and without material showing alteration or diversification of the unit, the embargo in explanation (iv) did not apply. The eligibility certificate could not be refused on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>