<?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>2008 (4) TMI 718 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174926</link>
    <description>A manufacturing unit is treated as a new industrial undertaking for transport subsidy purposes when it is a separate and identifiable unit with independent existence, even if there is common ownership, shared premises, or consolidated accounts. Relevant indicators included separate excise and tax registrations, separate labour and industrial recognition, independent power and pollution approvals, and distinct factory treatment by the authorities. On that basis, the second unit was regarded as a separate industrial unit, not a mere substantial expansion of the earlier unit. The request for interest on the subsidy amount was also not accepted, as no sufficient ground was shown to disturb the discretionary refusal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:22:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 718 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174926</link>
      <description>A manufacturing unit is treated as a new industrial undertaking for transport subsidy purposes when it is a separate and identifiable unit with independent existence, even if there is common ownership, shared premises, or consolidated accounts. Relevant indicators included separate excise and tax registrations, separate labour and industrial recognition, independent power and pollution approvals, and distinct factory treatment by the authorities. On that basis, the second unit was regarded as a separate industrial unit, not a mere substantial expansion of the earlier unit. The request for interest on the subsidy amount was also not accepted, as no sufficient ground was shown to disturb the discretionary refusal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>