<?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 (8) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345986</link>
    <description>The Allahabad High Court directed the respondents to clarify the status of the scheme granting tax benefits to the petitioner under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, which was repealed by the U.P.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner argued that without a notification revoking their entitlement, they should continue to collect and retain entertainment tax as per the previous scheme until 31st March, 2020. The case was listed for admission/final disposal on 18th September 2017, pending clarification on the continuation or revocation of the petitioner&#039;s benefits under the previous scheme. The outcome hinges on the interpretation of the saving clause in Section 174 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345986</link>
      <description>The Allahabad High Court directed the respondents to clarify the status of the scheme granting tax benefits to the petitioner under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, which was repealed by the U.P.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner argued that without a notification revoking their entitlement, they should continue to collect and retain entertainment tax as per the previous scheme until 31st March, 2020. The case was listed for admission/final disposal on 18th September 2017, pending clarification on the continuation or revocation of the petitioner&#039;s benefits under the previous scheme. The outcome hinges on the interpretation of the saving clause in Section 174 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>