<?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 (11) TMI 495 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159260</link>
    <description>Eligibility under the sales tax exemption scheme turned on the date of first fixed capital investment, because the notification and amendment defined a unit as &quot;set up&quot; when such investment began and did not impose any unstated requirement that commercial production must start by 30 November 1994. The later commencement of production in 1995 did not defeat exemption, since the scheme provided a seven-year benefit period from commercial production and the authority could not read in a restrictive condition absent from the text. The availability of a revisional remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the issue was recurring and judicial interpretation would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The refusal to issue the exemption form was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:59:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 495 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159260</link>
      <description>Eligibility under the sales tax exemption scheme turned on the date of first fixed capital investment, because the notification and amendment defined a unit as &quot;set up&quot; when such investment began and did not impose any unstated requirement that commercial production must start by 30 November 1994. The later commencement of production in 1995 did not defeat exemption, since the scheme provided a seven-year benefit period from commercial production and the authority could not read in a restrictive condition absent from the text. The availability of a revisional remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the issue was recurring and judicial interpretation would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The refusal to issue the exemption form was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>