<?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>1996 (10) TMI 466 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159864</link>
    <description>A fiscal concession under the Rajasthan sales tax framework was upheld as prospective and selective: the State could limit partial exemption to in-State sales first and extend a similar benefit to inter-State sales from a later date without offending Article 14. The notification&#039;s different commencement dates were treated as a permissible exercise of discretion in granting tax relief, especially where inter-State and export sales lay outside the immediate operation of the State levy. The dealer was also denied refund on raw wool purchases because it had not opted for the concessional treatment at the time of purchase under sections 5C and 5CC, and could not later claim excess tax relief merely because the finished goods were sold outside the State or exported.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:50:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 466 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159864</link>
      <description>A fiscal concession under the Rajasthan sales tax framework was upheld as prospective and selective: the State could limit partial exemption to in-State sales first and extend a similar benefit to inter-State sales from a later date without offending Article 14. The notification&#039;s different commencement dates were treated as a permissible exercise of discretion in granting tax relief, especially where inter-State and export sales lay outside the immediate operation of the State levy. The dealer was also denied refund on raw wool purchases because it had not opted for the concessional treatment at the time of purchase under sections 5C and 5CC, and could not later claim excess tax relief merely because the finished goods were sold outside the State or exported.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>