<?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>2000 (11) TMI 1187 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160390</link>
    <description>Sales tax exemption for stone crushers was confined to units licensed under the Haryana Regulation and Control of Crushers Act, 1991 and installed in a notified crusher zone. Industries placed in Schedule III under rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 were excluded from eligibility, so a stone crusher located outside the crusher zone could not qualify for exemption or retain an eligibility certificate. An eligibility certificate issued contrary to the rules was liable to withdrawal by the screening committee, and estoppel could not be used to preserve a benefit that was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:55:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 1187 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160390</link>
      <description>Sales tax exemption for stone crushers was confined to units licensed under the Haryana Regulation and Control of Crushers Act, 1991 and installed in a notified crusher zone. Industries placed in Schedule III under rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 were excluded from eligibility, so a stone crusher located outside the crusher zone could not qualify for exemption or retain an eligibility certificate. An eligibility certificate issued contrary to the rules was liable to withdrawal by the screening committee, and estoppel could not be used to preserve a benefit that was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>