<?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>2002 (6) TMI 572 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160796</link>
    <description>A purposive reading of the exemption notification for newly constructed cinema theatres required the Director&#039;s certificate to be produced within thirty days counted from the date of issue of the certificate, not from the first cinematography show. The Court held that the proprietor could not be denied exemption because administrative delay in issuing the certificate was beyond the assessee&#039;s control, and a strict construction would frustrate the beneficial object of the notification. It further held that, where the claim had been wrongly rejected, relief could still be moulded even after the stipulated period, and the exemption for the relevant three-year period was directed to be granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2013 17:08:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 572 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160796</link>
      <description>A purposive reading of the exemption notification for newly constructed cinema theatres required the Director&#039;s certificate to be produced within thirty days counted from the date of issue of the certificate, not from the first cinematography show. The Court held that the proprietor could not be denied exemption because administrative delay in issuing the certificate was beyond the assessee&#039;s control, and a strict construction would frustrate the beneficial object of the notification. It further held that, where the claim had been wrongly rejected, relief could still be moulded even after the stipulated period, and the exemption for the relevant three-year period was directed to be granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>