<?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>2016 (7) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329544</link>
    <description>Sales of ready-mix concrete to a Special Economic Zone developer were held to fall within the State&#039;s exemption regime, because the claim rested on G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 30.12.2006, as reiterated by Circular No.25 of 2014 and the notification dated 29.01.2016, which exempt sales to a registered dealer for setting up, operation or maintenance of a unit in an SEZ or for development, operation and maintenance of the SEZ by the developer. The assessing authority wrongly rejected the claim on a zero-rating analysis and on a decision based on a different legal foundation. The assessment orders were therefore interfered with and remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:59:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329544</link>
      <description>Sales of ready-mix concrete to a Special Economic Zone developer were held to fall within the State&#039;s exemption regime, because the claim rested on G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 30.12.2006, as reiterated by Circular No.25 of 2014 and the notification dated 29.01.2016, which exempt sales to a registered dealer for setting up, operation or maintenance of a unit in an SEZ or for development, operation and maintenance of the SEZ by the developer. The assessing authority wrongly rejected the claim on a zero-rating analysis and on a decision based on a different legal foundation. The assessment orders were therefore interfered with and remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>