<?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 636 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160010</link>
    <description>A liberal, purposive construction of the incentive scheme applied: the decisive question was whether the sugar mill was a distinct new industrial undertaking eligible for the paragraph 3 sales tax waiver. On the regulatory materials, the unit had been licensed as a new undertaking, maintained separate plant and machinery, separate establishment and records, and held independent excise and factory licences, supporting treatment as a new industry rather than expansion. The earlier remand did not bar fresh merits consideration. The rejection was set aside and the unit was held entitled to the statutory waiver benefit for new industries in backward areas.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:31:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 636 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160010</link>
      <description>A liberal, purposive construction of the incentive scheme applied: the decisive question was whether the sugar mill was a distinct new industrial undertaking eligible for the paragraph 3 sales tax waiver. On the regulatory materials, the unit had been licensed as a new undertaking, maintained separate plant and machinery, separate establishment and records, and held independent excise and factory licences, supporting treatment as a new industry rather than expansion. The earlier remand did not bar fresh merits consideration. The rejection was set aside and the unit was held entitled to the statutory waiver benefit for new industries in backward areas.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>