<?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>2004 (11) TMI 532 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161970</link>
    <description>On conversion of sales tax exemption into deferment under the Haryana VAT Act and Rules, the statutory framework allowed an industrial unit to shift for the remaining benefit period without insisting on a fresh security format beyond what the scheme permitted. Section 61(2)(d) preserved the exemption regime while enabling conversion to deferment, and Rules 69 and 70 governed the forms of security for deferred tax. Where the applicable scheme contemplated mixed security, including 15% bank guarantee and 85% personal sureties, a demand for a 100% bank guarantee was unsupported by the statute and scheme. The unit was therefore entitled to the deferment certificate on the security already furnished.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:37:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 532 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161970</link>
      <description>On conversion of sales tax exemption into deferment under the Haryana VAT Act and Rules, the statutory framework allowed an industrial unit to shift for the remaining benefit period without insisting on a fresh security format beyond what the scheme permitted. Section 61(2)(d) preserved the exemption regime while enabling conversion to deferment, and Rules 69 and 70 governed the forms of security for deferred tax. Where the applicable scheme contemplated mixed security, including 15% bank guarantee and 85% personal sureties, a demand for a 100% bank guarantee was unsupported by the statute and scheme. The unit was therefore entitled to the deferment certificate on the security already furnished.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>