<?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 (7) TMI 866 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163079</link>
    <description>Under the Uttarakhand VAT transition scheme, pre-existing sales tax exemptions linked to eligibility certificates under section 4A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act were treated as continuing for the unexpired period, unless inconsistent with the new Act. The earlier exemption notification remained operative until superseded by the later notification, and the statutory savings provisions supported continuation of the benefit during the interim period. In the absence of an exercised option to the contrary, continuation under the relevant clause was presumed. On that reasoning, denial of tax benefit for the interregnum and the demand raised for that period were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 866 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163079</link>
      <description>Under the Uttarakhand VAT transition scheme, pre-existing sales tax exemptions linked to eligibility certificates under section 4A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act were treated as continuing for the unexpired period, unless inconsistent with the new Act. The earlier exemption notification remained operative until superseded by the later notification, and the statutory savings provisions supported continuation of the benefit during the interim period. In the absence of an exercised option to the contrary, continuation under the relevant clause was presumed. On that reasoning, denial of tax benefit for the interregnum and the demand raised for that period were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>