<?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>1996 (5) TMI 398 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158904</link>
    <description>A fiscal industrial exemption operating as an incentive was treated as a one-time benefit available to a new unit or to an existing unit only for its expansion or diversification once. Because the petitioner, an old industrial unit, had already obtained the exemption for its expanded/diversified unit, the entitlement was exhausted and could not be revived by a later expansion or a fresh registration number. The wrong notification reference in the certificate and the question of review power did not change that substantive position. The cancellation of the exemption certificate was therefore upheld, and the unit was held not entitled to a second exemption on raw material purchases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:40:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 398 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158904</link>
      <description>A fiscal industrial exemption operating as an incentive was treated as a one-time benefit available to a new unit or to an existing unit only for its expansion or diversification once. Because the petitioner, an old industrial unit, had already obtained the exemption for its expanded/diversified unit, the entitlement was exhausted and could not be revived by a later expansion or a fresh registration number. The wrong notification reference in the certificate and the question of review power did not change that substantive position. The cancellation of the exemption certificate was therefore upheld, and the unit was held not entitled to a second exemption on raw material purchases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>