<?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 (12) TMI 119 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268815</link>
    <description>Naptha purchased under Form No. 26/40 was held to have been used entirely in the assessee&#039;s own manufacturing process for generating electricity for its unit. The steam used in the second turbine was only a waste by-product of that process, and the limited wheeling of electricity to a sister concern did not amount to diversion of naptha for any non-qualifying purpose. On those facts, there was no breach of the incentive conditions, so purchase tax, interest and penalty under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act were not justified. The Tribunal&#039;s findings were factual, not shown to be perverse, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 119 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268815</link>
      <description>Naptha purchased under Form No. 26/40 was held to have been used entirely in the assessee&#039;s own manufacturing process for generating electricity for its unit. The steam used in the second turbine was only a waste by-product of that process, and the limited wheeling of electricity to a sister concern did not amount to diversion of naptha for any non-qualifying purpose. On those facts, there was no breach of the incentive conditions, so purchase tax, interest and penalty under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act were not justified. The Tribunal&#039;s findings were factual, not shown to be perverse, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>