<?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 (4) TMI 1255 - Karnataka High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166392</link>
    <description>Entry tax exemption was available for a diesel generating set purchased with other machinery for a new industrial unit, because the notification covered production machinery and also treated DG sets as utilities directly related to production. The absence of a specific mention of the DG set in the Joint Director&#039;s certificate did not defeat the exemption where the equipment was otherwise within the notification and intended for use in the production process. A purely literal and technical reading of the procedural certificate requirement was rejected as inconsistent with the object of the exemption scheme. The revisional order denying the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1255 - Karnataka High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166392</link>
      <description>Entry tax exemption was available for a diesel generating set purchased with other machinery for a new industrial unit, because the notification covered production machinery and also treated DG sets as utilities directly related to production. The absence of a specific mention of the DG set in the Joint Director&#039;s certificate did not defeat the exemption where the equipment was otherwise within the notification and intended for use in the production process. A purely literal and technical reading of the procedural certificate requirement was rejected as inconsistent with the object of the exemption scheme. The revisional order denying the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>