<?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 (8) TMI 931 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160241</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction was treated as maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy where substantial questions of law arose, the remedy was not shown to be equally efficacious, and the levy was alleged to be without jurisdiction. Royalty under mining leases was not regarded as purchase price, so purchase tax could not be levied on that basis. Defects or non-filing of C forms were held not to defeat a separately granted total exemption unless the scheme made such filing a condition of exemption. The incentive scheme and exemption notifications were construed harmoniously and purposively, and eligibility recognised by the competent empowered committee could not be re-opened by a subordinate revenue authority. The exemption was treated as operative from commencement of commercial production.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:36:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 931 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160241</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction was treated as maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy where substantial questions of law arose, the remedy was not shown to be equally efficacious, and the levy was alleged to be without jurisdiction. Royalty under mining leases was not regarded as purchase price, so purchase tax could not be levied on that basis. Defects or non-filing of C forms were held not to defeat a separately granted total exemption unless the scheme made such filing a condition of exemption. The incentive scheme and exemption notifications were construed harmoniously and purposively, and eligibility recognised by the competent empowered committee could not be re-opened by a subordinate revenue authority. The exemption was treated as operative from commencement of commercial production.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>