<?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>1999 (4) TMI 588 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159736</link>
    <description>A sales tax incentive scheme treating diversification as a new product line with additional fixed capital investment was applied to a manufacturer of forged rings. The Court held that forged rings were distinct from rolled rings because they required different licences, machinery, raw materials, and production capacity, and the petitioner had crossed the prescribed investment threshold. The authority&#039;s refusal rested on an unreasoned technical report unsupported by material, which could not displace the factual showing of a new line of manufacture. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the eligibility certificate and the exemption benefit under the scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:38:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337741" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 588 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159736</link>
      <description>A sales tax incentive scheme treating diversification as a new product line with additional fixed capital investment was applied to a manufacturer of forged rings. The Court held that forged rings were distinct from rolled rings because they required different licences, machinery, raw materials, and production capacity, and the petitioner had crossed the prescribed investment threshold. The authority&#039;s refusal rested on an unreasoned technical report unsupported by material, which could not displace the factual showing of a new line of manufacture. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the eligibility certificate and the exemption benefit under the scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>