<?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 (2) TMI 1307 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161435</link>
    <description>In a post-licensing regime, the expression &quot;licensed/registered capacity&quot; in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive/Deferment Schemes, 1987 and 1989 was construed purposively to mean the unit&#039;s existing installed capacity, not the maximum theoretical capacity stated in an old industrial licence. The schemes required both increased fixed capital investment and production growth of at least 25% of the relevant base capacity, with benefit available only after prescribed utilisation was achieved. Because industrial licensing had ceased and a strict licence-based reading would frustrate the schemes&#039; object, claims for expansion benefits could not be rejected merely by reference to the obsolete licence capacity. The units were therefore eligible for treatment as expansion units under the schemes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:45:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1307 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161435</link>
      <description>In a post-licensing regime, the expression &quot;licensed/registered capacity&quot; in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive/Deferment Schemes, 1987 and 1989 was construed purposively to mean the unit&#039;s existing installed capacity, not the maximum theoretical capacity stated in an old industrial licence. The schemes required both increased fixed capital investment and production growth of at least 25% of the relevant base capacity, with benefit available only after prescribed utilisation was achieved. Because industrial licensing had ceased and a strict licence-based reading would frustrate the schemes&#039; object, claims for expansion benefits could not be rejected merely by reference to the obsolete licence capacity. The units were therefore eligible for treatment as expansion units under the schemes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>