<?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 279 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159376</link>
    <description>The statutory sales tax exemption notification under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was controlling, and its own definition of the designated area governed eligibility: a new industry commissioned beyond 10 kilometres from Surat fell within the benefit. The unit was found to be located beyond that limit, and no unmet eligibility condition was shown. The exemption could not be reduced by treating Sachin as part of a growth centre or by relying on a later administrative clarification. The revisional reduction of the eligibility certificate from 50 per cent to 25 per cent was therefore unlawful, and the petitioners were entitled to retain the notified exemption benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:32:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 279 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159376</link>
      <description>The statutory sales tax exemption notification under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was controlling, and its own definition of the designated area governed eligibility: a new industry commissioned beyond 10 kilometres from Surat fell within the benefit. The unit was found to be located beyond that limit, and no unmet eligibility condition was shown. The exemption could not be reduced by treating Sachin as part of a growth centre or by relying on a later administrative clarification. The revisional reduction of the eligibility certificate from 50 per cent to 25 per cent was therefore unlawful, and the petitioners were entitled to retain the notified exemption benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>