<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1525 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165702</link>
    <description>The exemption notification under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was construed to grant eligible industrial units tax concession from commencement of production, subject to the prescribed ceiling. The negative-list clause excluding power-intensive units was read conjunctively because the word &quot;and&quot; linked the requirements of total power consumption above 2500 KVA and power cost above 25% of production cost; treating it as disjunctive would make part of the clause redundant. The exclusion was also held to apply only to units provisionally registered on or after the stated cut-off date, and the unit&#039;s earlier provisional registration kept it within the protected class. Consistent administrative treatment of similar units supported that construction. The refusal of exemption was therefore unjustified, and the adverse orders were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1525 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165702</link>
      <description>The exemption notification under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was construed to grant eligible industrial units tax concession from commencement of production, subject to the prescribed ceiling. The negative-list clause excluding power-intensive units was read conjunctively because the word &quot;and&quot; linked the requirements of total power consumption above 2500 KVA and power cost above 25% of production cost; treating it as disjunctive would make part of the clause redundant. The exclusion was also held to apply only to units provisionally registered on or after the stated cut-off date, and the unit&#039;s earlier provisional registration kept it within the protected class. Consistent administrative treatment of similar units supported that construction. The refusal of exemption was therefore unjustified, and the adverse orders were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>