<?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 (12) TMI 372 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159490</link>
    <description>Exemption under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is described as subject to strict compliance with mandatory conditions, including a registered lease deed and proof of registration under the Factories Act. The text states that a lease for more than one year requires registration under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and an unregistered instrument cannot satisfy the exemption requirement. It also states that a retrospective amendment to section 4-A operates with full legal effect from the earlier date, so any inconsistent vested-right claim cannot survive against the amended provision. The discussion concludes that exemption claims must be strictly proved and are defeated by retrospective legislative change.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:14:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 372 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159490</link>
      <description>Exemption under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is described as subject to strict compliance with mandatory conditions, including a registered lease deed and proof of registration under the Factories Act. The text states that a lease for more than one year requires registration under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and an unregistered instrument cannot satisfy the exemption requirement. It also states that a retrospective amendment to section 4-A operates with full legal effect from the earlier date, so any inconsistent vested-right claim cannot survive against the amended provision. The discussion concludes that exemption claims must be strictly proved and are defeated by retrospective legislative change.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>