<?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>2009 (2) TMI 773 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164193</link>
    <description>A beneficial sales tax exemption notification under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was construed purposively to cover machinery acquired for the same industrial project during the notification period. The phrase &quot;setting up of industry&quot; was held to describe a continuing process of establishing and completing the unit, not a fixed event ending on first commercial production. Because the notification did not use the words &quot;new industry,&quot; machinery purchased after production had begun was not excluded merely on that ground. The later purchase therefore remained eligible for exemption, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 773 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164193</link>
      <description>A beneficial sales tax exemption notification under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was construed purposively to cover machinery acquired for the same industrial project during the notification period. The phrase &quot;setting up of industry&quot; was held to describe a continuing process of establishing and completing the unit, not a fixed event ending on first commercial production. Because the notification did not use the words &quot;new industry,&quot; machinery purchased after production had begun was not excluded merely on that ground. The later purchase therefore remained eligible for exemption, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>