<?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 (12) TMI 462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162828</link>
    <description>Sales tax deferral and waiver under the incentive scheme turned on harmonised reading of the statutory notifications, Government Order, eligibility certificate and agreement. For an expansion unit, the base production and base sales conditions were treated as a single regulatory test, so relief applied when the financial year&#039;s production exceeded the base production volume and sales exceeded the base sales volume. For a diversified unit, the existing unit&#039;s production benchmark was held inapplicable because the diversified unit made a different product; it was to be treated as a new plant for relief, and the matter was directed for reconsideration on merits. The demands were set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:29:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162828</link>
      <description>Sales tax deferral and waiver under the incentive scheme turned on harmonised reading of the statutory notifications, Government Order, eligibility certificate and agreement. For an expansion unit, the base production and base sales conditions were treated as a single regulatory test, so relief applied when the financial year&#039;s production exceeded the base production volume and sales exceeded the base sales volume. For a diversified unit, the existing unit&#039;s production benchmark was held inapplicable because the diversified unit made a different product; it was to be treated as a new plant for relief, and the matter was directed for reconsideration on merits. The demands were set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>