<?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 (8) TMI 665 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162233</link>
    <description>Claims for sales tax incentive relating to a new building and plant and machinery required fresh examination because they had not been conclusively decided on the facts. The building claim depended on whether substantial execution and payment occurred during the scheme period despite the contract being signed earlier, while the machinery claim depended on whether the machinery was first supplied, installed and used at the petitioner&#039;s premises rather than being treated as covered merely by an earlier order and part payment by another concern. The matter was remanded to the State Level Committee, and the petitioner was allowed to seek condonation of production breaks before that Committee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:43:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 665 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162233</link>
      <description>Claims for sales tax incentive relating to a new building and plant and machinery required fresh examination because they had not been conclusively decided on the facts. The building claim depended on whether substantial execution and payment occurred during the scheme period despite the contract being signed earlier, while the machinery claim depended on whether the machinery was first supplied, installed and used at the petitioner&#039;s premises rather than being treated as covered merely by an earlier order and part payment by another concern. The matter was remanded to the State Level Committee, and the petitioner was allowed to seek condonation of production breaks before that Committee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>