<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1009 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164438</link>
    <description>Where an incentive scheme ties sales tax deferment to certification by the competent industrial authority, the assessing officer cannot disregard that certification and adopt a narrower view of the unit&#039;s commencement of commercial production. On the facts stated, the eligibility certificates and related clarification recognised 20 January 2000 as the start of the unit&#039;s own manufacture and sale, so deferment from that date was available. Reassessment could not then be sustained absent escapement or under-assessment of turnover; a mere change of opinion on eligibility, especially after the original assessment had merged with appellate orders, did not confer jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessments. The reassessment orders were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1009 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164438</link>
      <description>Where an incentive scheme ties sales tax deferment to certification by the competent industrial authority, the assessing officer cannot disregard that certification and adopt a narrower view of the unit&#039;s commencement of commercial production. On the facts stated, the eligibility certificates and related clarification recognised 20 January 2000 as the start of the unit&#039;s own manufacture and sale, so deferment from that date was available. Reassessment could not then be sustained absent escapement or under-assessment of turnover; a mere change of opinion on eligibility, especially after the original assessment had merged with appellate orders, did not confer jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessments. The reassessment orders were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>