<?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>2006 (3) TMI 698 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162066</link>
    <description>An expanded industrial unit was treated under the incentive scheme on the same footing as a new unit for sales tax deferment or exemption on enhanced turnover. The text explains that G.O. Ms. No. 18 allowed sales tax paid during the period before final eligibility certification to be adjusted against future dues, and that this adjustment mechanism was not limited to newly established units. It also states that the absence of a temporary eligibility certificate in an expansion case did not by itself defeat adjustment for the intervening period before the final certificate. The scheme&#039;s object was to give industrial units breathing time, but the claim for adjustment was ultimately not accepted and the writ petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:15:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 698 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162066</link>
      <description>An expanded industrial unit was treated under the incentive scheme on the same footing as a new unit for sales tax deferment or exemption on enhanced turnover. The text explains that G.O. Ms. No. 18 allowed sales tax paid during the period before final eligibility certification to be adjusted against future dues, and that this adjustment mechanism was not limited to newly established units. It also states that the absence of a temporary eligibility certificate in an expansion case did not by itself defeat adjustment for the intervening period before the final certificate. The scheme&#039;s object was to give industrial units breathing time, but the claim for adjustment was ultimately not accepted and the writ petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>