<?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 (7) TMI 895 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164058</link>
    <description>An administrative order rejecting a sales tax exemption claim was liable to be set aside for want of reasons, because a public authority must pass a reasoned order to ensure fair procedure, natural justice and freedom from arbitrariness. The impugned order merely referred to the notification and did not explain the basis of rejection. However, discretionary relief was refused because the claim was raised belatedly, the exemption was confined to a specific period, and the record did not establish that the industrial unit had commenced commercial production when the application was considered. The order was therefore unspeaking, but no relief was granted on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 895 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164058</link>
      <description>An administrative order rejecting a sales tax exemption claim was liable to be set aside for want of reasons, because a public authority must pass a reasoned order to ensure fair procedure, natural justice and freedom from arbitrariness. The impugned order merely referred to the notification and did not explain the basis of rejection. However, discretionary relief was refused because the claim was raised belatedly, the exemption was confined to a specific period, and the record did not establish that the industrial unit had commenced commercial production when the application was considered. The order was therefore unspeaking, but no relief was granted on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>