https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221369 An incentive scheme restricting branch transfers beyond 20% of total production was held not to operate after expiry of the eligibility certificate, because Clause 4(e)(ii) was linked to the period for which the incentive remained available and did not create an independent post-expiry obligation. The demand based on alleged transfers after expiry was therefore unsustainable. The writ petition was also maintained despite an alternative appellate remedy, since the suggested appeal was ineffective in the circumstances and the objection was rejected in the exercise of writ discretion. The assessment and recovery orders, along with the tax, interest and penalty demands founded on the alleged breach, were quashed. en-us Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221369 An incentive scheme restricting branch transfers beyond 20% of total production was held not to operate after expiry of the eligibility certificate, because Clause 4(e)(ii) was linked to the period for which the incentive remained available and did not create an independent post-expiry obligation. The demand based on alleged transfers after expiry was therefore unsustainable. The writ petition was also maintained despite an alternative appellate remedy, since the suggested appeal was ineffective in the circumstances and the objection was rejected in the exercise of writ discretion. The assessment and recovery orders, along with the tax, interest and penalty demands founded on the alleged breach, were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221369