<?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 (11) TMI 614 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163522</link>
    <description>An export-oriented unit claiming exemption under the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 had to satisfy the export-linked eligibility condition in each relevant year. The annual assessment structure did not permit continuation of exemption merely because the prescribed export percentage might be achieved cumulatively by the end of the ten-year deferment period. In the absence of an express rule allowing such carry-forward treatment, exemption could not be retained for years in which the export target was missed. The assessee was therefore not entitled to exemption for those years, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:17:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 614 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163522</link>
      <description>An export-oriented unit claiming exemption under the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 had to satisfy the export-linked eligibility condition in each relevant year. The annual assessment structure did not permit continuation of exemption merely because the prescribed export percentage might be achieved cumulatively by the end of the ten-year deferment period. In the absence of an express rule allowing such carry-forward treatment, exemption could not be retained for years in which the export target was missed. The assessee was therefore not entitled to exemption for those years, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>