<?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>1994 (3) TMI 367 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158020</link>
    <description>Oil mills registered as small-scale industrial units before 1 April 1991 could not be denied sales tax exemption for the remaining period under the earlier notifications merely because S.R.O. No. 440/91 imposed a restrictive cut-off. The Court held that units already set up and otherwise eligible could not lose a promised benefit where production of eligibility proceedings before the assessing authority depended on official action beyond the dealer&#039;s control. A later notification could not arbitrarily curtail exemption already conferred under earlier schemes, and such withdrawal was held inconsistent with Article 14. The full exemption period under the earlier notifications was therefore preserved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:47:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=328240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 367 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158020</link>
      <description>Oil mills registered as small-scale industrial units before 1 April 1991 could not be denied sales tax exemption for the remaining period under the earlier notifications merely because S.R.O. No. 440/91 imposed a restrictive cut-off. The Court held that units already set up and otherwise eligible could not lose a promised benefit where production of eligibility proceedings before the assessing authority depended on official action beyond the dealer&#039;s control. A later notification could not arbitrarily curtail exemption already conferred under earlier schemes, and such withdrawal was held inconsistent with Article 14. The full exemption period under the earlier notifications was therefore preserved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>