<?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 (12) TMI 870 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164487</link>
    <description>Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 was treated as a beneficial exemption scheme, with sub-rules (3) and (4)(a) allowing an eligible industrial unit to opt for exemption or deferment from either the date of commercial production or the date of issue of the certificate. The rejection of exemption only because commercial production began when the product was still in the negative list was held unjustified, especially where the unit had applied within time and the product had been removed from the negative list by the time of application. The claim was therefore required to be considered from the date of application or the date of certificate, and the rejection orders were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 870 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164487</link>
      <description>Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 was treated as a beneficial exemption scheme, with sub-rules (3) and (4)(a) allowing an eligible industrial unit to opt for exemption or deferment from either the date of commercial production or the date of issue of the certificate. The rejection of exemption only because commercial production began when the product was still in the negative list was held unjustified, especially where the unit had applied within time and the product had been removed from the negative list by the time of application. The claim was therefore required to be considered from the date of application or the date of certificate, and the rejection orders were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>