<?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 (4) TMI 258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158235</link>
    <description>Section 4-A exemption under the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be denied merely because a new unit was adjacent to an existing unit manufacturing the same goods. The disqualification in the Explanation applied only where the new factory or workshop was established by a person having the prescribed proprietary, partnership, agency, promoter, holding company, or subsidiary interest in the existing unit. On the admitted facts, the two units were separately run by husband and wife, and no qualifying interest nexus was shown. The exemption claim therefore remained valid, the eligibility certificate was held to be due, and the rejection of the review application was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:17:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158235</link>
      <description>Section 4-A exemption under the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be denied merely because a new unit was adjacent to an existing unit manufacturing the same goods. The disqualification in the Explanation applied only where the new factory or workshop was established by a person having the prescribed proprietary, partnership, agency, promoter, holding company, or subsidiary interest in the existing unit. On the admitted facts, the two units were separately run by husband and wife, and no qualifying interest nexus was shown. The exemption claim therefore remained valid, the eligibility certificate was held to be due, and the rejection of the review application was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>