<?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 (6) TMI 722 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166570</link>
    <description>The text discusses whether an exemption under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993 and a rehabilitation arrangement under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 extended to turnover tax introduced later under section 16B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. It explains that the scheme treated turnover tax as part of sales tax liability on the turnover of sales, rather than as a separate levy. It also notes that the assessee acted on the Government&#039;s promise by making substantial investment, supporting promissory estoppel, and that the BIFR rehabilitation order, enforceable under section 32 of SICA, prevailed over inconsistent State law for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 722 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166570</link>
      <description>The text discusses whether an exemption under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993 and a rehabilitation arrangement under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 extended to turnover tax introduced later under section 16B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. It explains that the scheme treated turnover tax as part of sales tax liability on the turnover of sales, rather than as a separate levy. It also notes that the assessee acted on the Government&#039;s promise by making substantial investment, supporting promissory estoppel, and that the BIFR rehabilitation order, enforceable under section 32 of SICA, prevailed over inconsistent State law for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>