<?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>2003 (8) TMI 522 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163398</link>
    <description>Machinery and plant purchased in 1984-85 against form III-D for generation of electrical energy were treated as eligible for concessional tax under section 3G of the U.P. Sales Tax Act because the restrictive proviso excluding goods used in manufacture or packing of goods other than electrical energy came into force only from 13 September 1985. Earlier departmental circulars had permitted the concession, and the later amendment could not affect completed purchases. Reassessment under section 21 was also found unjustified, as that provision applies only where turnover has in fact escaped assessment; no such escapement was shown on these facts. The Tribunal&#039;s view was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:51:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 522 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163398</link>
      <description>Machinery and plant purchased in 1984-85 against form III-D for generation of electrical energy were treated as eligible for concessional tax under section 3G of the U.P. Sales Tax Act because the restrictive proviso excluding goods used in manufacture or packing of goods other than electrical energy came into force only from 13 September 1985. Earlier departmental circulars had permitted the concession, and the later amendment could not affect completed purchases. Reassessment under section 21 was also found unjustified, as that provision applies only where turnover has in fact escaped assessment; no such escapement was shown on these facts. The Tribunal&#039;s view was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>