<?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>2001 (4) TMI 916 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174188</link>
    <description>An authority administering a statutory sales tax incentive scheme cannot add eligibility conditions not contained in the notification or scheme. A claim for incentive could not be rejected merely because the industrial unit was set up in rented premises, since the scheme did not require ownership of the land and did not prohibit leasehold occupation. A speculative concern that the unit might not continue for the minimum period was also not a valid threshold ground for refusal, because the scheme itself provided for withdrawal if production stopped prematurely. The application had to be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme and without extraneous considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2015 10:35:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 916 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174188</link>
      <description>An authority administering a statutory sales tax incentive scheme cannot add eligibility conditions not contained in the notification or scheme. A claim for incentive could not be rejected merely because the industrial unit was set up in rented premises, since the scheme did not require ownership of the land and did not prohibit leasehold occupation. A speculative concern that the unit might not continue for the minimum period was also not a valid threshold ground for refusal, because the scheme itself provided for withdrawal if production stopped prematurely. The application had to be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme and without extraneous considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>