<?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>2006 (10) TMI 414 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163671</link>
    <description>Sales tax exemption under SRO No. 969 of 1980 depended on whether the unit was a small-scale industrial unit set up by Harijans and whether the factual requirements for the notification were satisfied. The record was inconclusive because no exemption certificate from the Industries Department was produced, the community certificate was under challenge and referred for enquiry, and the ownership and management structure had not been clearly examined. The exemption claim therefore required fresh reconsideration by the assessing officer after the KIRTADS finding and any necessary clarification, with any adverse order to be preceded by communication of the basis and an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:34:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 414 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163671</link>
      <description>Sales tax exemption under SRO No. 969 of 1980 depended on whether the unit was a small-scale industrial unit set up by Harijans and whether the factual requirements for the notification were satisfied. The record was inconclusive because no exemption certificate from the Industries Department was produced, the community certificate was under challenge and referred for enquiry, and the ownership and management structure had not been clearly examined. The exemption claim therefore required fresh reconsideration by the assessing officer after the KIRTADS finding and any necessary clarification, with any adverse order to be preceded by communication of the basis and an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>