<?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>2014 (11) TMI 879 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253562</link>
    <description>An industrial incentive scheme treated the eligibility certificate issued by the Department of Industries as the ative step for tax exemption, so the sales tax authority could not re-examine that eligibility and could interfere only on limited grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation. On that basis, the exemption rejection was unsustainable. The scheme was also construed to advance industrial investment, so three independently functioning manufacturing units, with separate books and distinct products, could each claim a separate exemption limit. The benefit could not be confined to one unit merely because the same entrepreneur owned them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:31:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 879 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253562</link>
      <description>An industrial incentive scheme treated the eligibility certificate issued by the Department of Industries as the ative step for tax exemption, so the sales tax authority could not re-examine that eligibility and could interfere only on limited grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation. On that basis, the exemption rejection was unsustainable. The scheme was also construed to advance industrial investment, so three independently functioning manufacturing units, with separate books and distinct products, could each claim a separate exemption limit. The benefit could not be confined to one unit merely because the same entrepreneur owned them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>