<?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>2008 (8) TMI 809 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163025</link>
    <description>An exemption certificate under an industrial incentive scheme was confined to goods manufactured and sold, and did not extend by implication to purchase tax on rubber wood used in manufacture. The governing notification and the true scope of the District Industries Centre certificate controlled the claim, and the goods were also not taxable at the last purchase point. Applying the principle from the Supreme Court on construing similar exemption notifications, the Kerala HC treated the cited authorities on interference with exemption certificates as distinguishable because no purchase-tax relief had ever been granted. The assessee&#039;s claim therefore failed, and the reassessment and appellate orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 809 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163025</link>
      <description>An exemption certificate under an industrial incentive scheme was confined to goods manufactured and sold, and did not extend by implication to purchase tax on rubber wood used in manufacture. The governing notification and the true scope of the District Industries Centre certificate controlled the claim, and the goods were also not taxable at the last purchase point. Applying the principle from the Supreme Court on construing similar exemption notifications, the Kerala HC treated the cited authorities on interference with exemption certificates as distinguishable because no purchase-tax relief had ever been granted. The assessee&#039;s claim therefore failed, and the reassessment and appellate orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>