<?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>2007 (7) TMI 601 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163290</link>
    <description>Sales tax exemption under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules was available only if the assessee satisfied the statutory requirements of expansion or diversification, including the stipulated additional fixed capital investment during the operative period. On the record, the unit failed to show the requisite investment or statutory expansion in the legal sense, so inclusion of colour T.V. monitors in the eligibility certificate was unsustainable. The writ court also declined interference because the challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s order was unexplainedly delayed and the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation was found correct on merits. The Tribunal&#039;s order was therefore sustained and writ relief was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:28:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 601 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163290</link>
      <description>Sales tax exemption under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules was available only if the assessee satisfied the statutory requirements of expansion or diversification, including the stipulated additional fixed capital investment during the operative period. On the record, the unit failed to show the requisite investment or statutory expansion in the legal sense, so inclusion of colour T.V. monitors in the eligibility certificate was unsustainable. The writ court also declined interference because the challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s order was unexplainedly delayed and the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation was found correct on merits. The Tribunal&#039;s order was therefore sustained and writ relief was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>