<?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>2015 (8) TMI 202 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262285</link>
    <description>Work involving installation of profile-safety steel barriers at a hazardous location on a national highway was treated as work relating to roads for exemption purposes. The expression &quot;relating to&quot; was given a broad meaning, and safety measures at toll plazas were regarded as integral to modern road construction and road safety. On that basis, the exemption certificate and notification were read as covering the activity, so the remaining objections did not require separate consideration. The challenge based on Rule 14 also failed because no fraud or misrepresentation was shown, and the factual findings below consistently favoured the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 202 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262285</link>
      <description>Work involving installation of profile-safety steel barriers at a hazardous location on a national highway was treated as work relating to roads for exemption purposes. The expression &quot;relating to&quot; was given a broad meaning, and safety measures at toll plazas were regarded as integral to modern road construction and road safety. On that basis, the exemption certificate and notification were read as covering the activity, so the remaining objections did not require separate consideration. The challenge based on Rule 14 also failed because no fraud or misrepresentation was shown, and the factual findings below consistently favoured the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>