<?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>2012 (10) TMI 963 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167753</link>
    <description>An exemption claim under a sales tax notification had to be reconsidered because the rejection ignored an amended cut-off date extending the time for commencement of production. The notification did not expressly exclude a unit that later obtained permanent registration after provisional registration, so the scope of the exemption required fresh examination. The appellate order was also unsustainable because it rejected the claim on a new ground without notice or an opportunity to respond, contrary to natural justice. The refusal of exemption was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision, with interim protection against coercive recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 963 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167753</link>
      <description>An exemption claim under a sales tax notification had to be reconsidered because the rejection ignored an amended cut-off date extending the time for commencement of production. The notification did not expressly exclude a unit that later obtained permanent registration after provisional registration, so the scope of the exemption required fresh examination. The appellate order was also unsustainable because it rejected the claim on a new ground without notice or an opportunity to respond, contrary to natural justice. The refusal of exemption was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision, with interim protection against coercive recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>