<?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>2013 (10) TMI 256 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237801</link>
    <description>The Bombay Sales Tax incentive framework for small scale units was examined where amended Section 41C sought to impose, for the first time, a ceiling linked to approved gross fixed capital investment and to curtail the incentive period. The earlier 1979 package scheme had not imposed such a ceiling, and the 1982 modification preserved commitments already made to existing units unless they opted for the revised regime. The amendment was treated as ineffective against units that had applied under the original scheme, obtained eligibility belatedly, and altered their position in reliance on that assurance, because retrospective curtailment of earned or expected benefits would be inequitable and arbitrary in that context.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=200208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 256 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237801</link>
      <description>The Bombay Sales Tax incentive framework for small scale units was examined where amended Section 41C sought to impose, for the first time, a ceiling linked to approved gross fixed capital investment and to curtail the incentive period. The earlier 1979 package scheme had not imposed such a ceiling, and the 1982 modification preserved commitments already made to existing units unless they opted for the revised regime. The amendment was treated as ineffective against units that had applied under the original scheme, obtained eligibility belatedly, and altered their position in reliance on that assurance, because retrospective curtailment of earned or expected benefits would be inequitable and arbitrary in that context.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>