<?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>1997 (1) TMI 490 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158761</link>
    <description>Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 treated a new industrial unit and an expansion or diversification unit as separate categories with distinct eligibility conditions. The restriction in clause (c) against a unit formed from old machinery applied only to new industrial units and could not be imported into clause (d) for diversified units. A diversified unit remains eligible where it satisfies clause (d), including the required additional fixed capital investment and commencement of manufacture of different products, even if some old machinery was purchased. The text also notes that the exemption rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision on the exemption application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:31:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 490 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158761</link>
      <description>Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 treated a new industrial unit and an expansion or diversification unit as separate categories with distinct eligibility conditions. The restriction in clause (c) against a unit formed from old machinery applied only to new industrial units and could not be imported into clause (d) for diversified units. A diversified unit remains eligible where it satisfies clause (d), including the required additional fixed capital investment and commencement of manufacture of different products, even if some old machinery was purchased. The text also notes that the exemption rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision on the exemption application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>