<?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>2017 (5) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342526</link>
    <description>Exemption from electricity duty under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act was held to depend on strict compliance with the statutory and notification conditions. The Court stated that joint generation exemption was unavailable because the generating company and the steel company were separate legal entities, and part of the output was allocated to the electricity board, which was not an industrial undertaking jointly generating energy for self-use. The notification-based exemption also failed because the generating sets were commissioned outside the stipulated period, and mere placement of an order did not amount to purchase for that purpose. The demand for electricity duty was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2022 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342526</link>
      <description>Exemption from electricity duty under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act was held to depend on strict compliance with the statutory and notification conditions. The Court stated that joint generation exemption was unavailable because the generating company and the steel company were separate legal entities, and part of the output was allocated to the electricity board, which was not an industrial undertaking jointly generating energy for self-use. The notification-based exemption also failed because the generating sets were commissioned outside the stipulated period, and mere placement of an order did not amount to purchase for that purpose. The demand for electricity duty was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>