<?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 (1) TMI 661 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162311</link>
    <description>Under the Kerala sales tax exemption scheme for new industrial units, &quot;effective steps&quot; before 1 January 2000 could be shown by bona fide project activity such as acquisition of land and placement of firm orders for machinery, especially for self-financed units. The notification&#039;s reference to advance payments was only one evidentiary mode and did not make substantial advance payment mandatory unless the text clearly said so. The rejection of exemption on the premise that full or substantial advance payment for all machinery was required was treated as unsustainable, and the matter was directed for fresh, reasoned consideration on the petitioner&#039;s evidence without being bound by the impugned clarification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:12:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 661 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162311</link>
      <description>Under the Kerala sales tax exemption scheme for new industrial units, &quot;effective steps&quot; before 1 January 2000 could be shown by bona fide project activity such as acquisition of land and placement of firm orders for machinery, especially for self-financed units. The notification&#039;s reference to advance payments was only one evidentiary mode and did not make substantial advance payment mandatory unless the text clearly said so. The rejection of exemption on the premise that full or substantial advance payment for all machinery was required was treated as unsustainable, and the matter was directed for fresh, reasoned consideration on the petitioner&#039;s evidence without being bound by the impugned clarification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>