<?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 (9) TMI 637 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160037</link>
    <description>A cement division with a separate industrial licence from the Government of India qualified as an industrial unit under the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990, and could not be denied separate sales tax registration merely because it formed part of an existing company. The HC held that section 14 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 did not bar separate registration where the deferment scheme required it. Refusal of separate registration would defeat the deferred payment benefit, so the rejection of both registration and deferment relief was unsustainable and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:13:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 637 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160037</link>
      <description>A cement division with a separate industrial licence from the Government of India qualified as an industrial unit under the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990, and could not be denied separate sales tax registration merely because it formed part of an existing company. The HC held that section 14 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 did not bar separate registration where the deferment scheme required it. Refusal of separate registration would defeat the deferred payment benefit, so the rejection of both registration and deferment relief was unsustainable and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>