<?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 (10) TMI 756 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161541</link>
    <description>A fact-finding authority&#039;s denial of sales tax exemption cannot stand where the record shows prior inspections, installed machinery, separate tenancy and electricity arrangements, and earlier provisional recognition, because those materials did not support the conclusion that the unit was merely an old concern in a new form or that rule 98 was unmet. The adverse findings on eligibility were therefore rejected. On the separate question of payment for plant and machinery said to have been purchased from Ayan Industrial Corporation, the enquiry was incomplete because the relevant third-party records were not fully made available for inspection. That issue was remitted for fresh decision after proper verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:14:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 756 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161541</link>
      <description>A fact-finding authority&#039;s denial of sales tax exemption cannot stand where the record shows prior inspections, installed machinery, separate tenancy and electricity arrangements, and earlier provisional recognition, because those materials did not support the conclusion that the unit was merely an old concern in a new form or that rule 98 was unmet. The adverse findings on eligibility were therefore rejected. On the separate question of payment for plant and machinery said to have been purchased from Ayan Industrial Corporation, the enquiry was incomplete because the relevant third-party records were not fully made available for inspection. That issue was remitted for fresh decision after proper verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>