<?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 (8) TMI 1052 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168025</link>
    <description>A prior judicial direction requiring revenue authorities to reconsider an exemption claim on a specified basis must be complied with through a fresh examination of the claim. An earlier administrative rejection that predated that direction cannot be treated as conclusive disposal of the matter or as satisfying the mandate for reconsideration. The fact that the amending notification introduced a cut-off date did not answer the petitioners&#039; specific entitlement under the earlier order. The exemption claim therefore had to be re-examined to determine whether the petitioners had taken effective steps and were covered by the earlier notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 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=373224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1052 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168025</link>
      <description>A prior judicial direction requiring revenue authorities to reconsider an exemption claim on a specified basis must be complied with through a fresh examination of the claim. An earlier administrative rejection that predated that direction cannot be treated as conclusive disposal of the matter or as satisfying the mandate for reconsideration. The fact that the amending notification introduced a cut-off date did not answer the petitioners&#039; specific entitlement under the earlier order. The exemption claim therefore had to be re-examined to determine whether the petitioners had taken effective steps and were covered by the earlier notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>