<?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 (4) TMI 1310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200123</link>
    <description>An amnesty scheme covering past taxable transactions of developers and works contractors from 1 April 2006 was construed to extend to taxpayers who had already paid tax and interest before the scheme commenced. The court read the preamble, operative clauses, and provisions on pending appeals together and held that the requirement to pay during the scheme period did not exclude prior payers, especially where the scheme also denied refund of amounts already paid. A contrary reading would create an irrational distinction between similarly placed taxpayers and offend Article 14. The petitioners were therefore entitled to the scheme&#039;s benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:59:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200123</link>
      <description>An amnesty scheme covering past taxable transactions of developers and works contractors from 1 April 2006 was construed to extend to taxpayers who had already paid tax and interest before the scheme commenced. The court read the preamble, operative clauses, and provisions on pending appeals together and held that the requirement to pay during the scheme period did not exclude prior payers, especially where the scheme also denied refund of amounts already paid. A contrary reading would create an irrational distinction between similarly placed taxpayers and offend Article 14. The petitioners were therefore entitled to the scheme&#039;s benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>