<?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 (1) TMI 425 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160230</link>
    <description>The earlier Government order dated 30.10.1982 granted a five-year package of incentives and concessions to new industries from the commencement of commercial production, subject only to the exclusions in its appendix, and it did not impose any manufacturing-activity requirement. The subsequent notification dated 31.03.1983 did not repeal the earlier order, so both operated concurrently. As the appellants had commenced production while both notifications were in force and did not fall within any excluded category, the department could not deny the benefit available under the earlier order. The denial of incentives was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 425 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160230</link>
      <description>The earlier Government order dated 30.10.1982 granted a five-year package of incentives and concessions to new industries from the commencement of commercial production, subject only to the exclusions in its appendix, and it did not impose any manufacturing-activity requirement. The subsequent notification dated 31.03.1983 did not repeal the earlier order, so both operated concurrently. As the appellants had commenced production while both notifications were in force and did not fall within any excluded category, the department could not deny the benefit available under the earlier order. The denial of incentives was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>