<?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 (4) TMI 648 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163604</link>
    <description>Exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be denied merely because the unit had not obtained a licence for use of the standard mark under the Cement Control Order, 1995. The exemption had to be tested only against the statutory and notified conditions governing section 4A, while the standard-mark licence remained a separate regulatory requirement enforceable under the Control Order. Absence of that licence could attract action under the Control Order, but it was not an express prerequisite for tax exemption. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the eligibility certificate and exemption from the date of first sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:24:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 648 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163604</link>
      <description>Exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be denied merely because the unit had not obtained a licence for use of the standard mark under the Cement Control Order, 1995. The exemption had to be tested only against the statutory and notified conditions governing section 4A, while the standard-mark licence remained a separate regulatory requirement enforceable under the Control Order. Absence of that licence could attract action under the Control Order, but it was not an express prerequisite for tax exemption. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the eligibility certificate and exemption from the date of first sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>