<?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>1998 (11) TMI 616 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159697</link>
    <description>A unit eligible under a sales tax incentive scheme&#039;s diversification category could not be denied relief by importing the separate conditions attached to expansion, because the scheme treated the two as distinct routes with different requirements. On the facts, the unit had a fresh industrial licence, a new product line and the requisite fixed capital investment, so diversification eligibility was made out even without proof of sale of the diversified product. A later sanction under a sick-unit scheme did not extinguish the earlier entitlement, because the prohibition on dual benefits prevented only concurrent enjoyment, not accrued eligibility under the earlier scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 616 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159697</link>
      <description>A unit eligible under a sales tax incentive scheme&#039;s diversification category could not be denied relief by importing the separate conditions attached to expansion, because the scheme treated the two as distinct routes with different requirements. On the facts, the unit had a fresh industrial licence, a new product line and the requisite fixed capital investment, so diversification eligibility was made out even without proof of sale of the diversified product. A later sanction under a sick-unit scheme did not extinguish the earlier entitlement, because the prohibition on dual benefits prevented only concurrent enjoyment, not accrued eligibility under the earlier scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>