<?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>2018 (9) TMI 1642 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367906</link>
    <description>Deferment of VAT granted to a sick industrial unit under a rehabilitation scheme was held to survive repeal of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act because section 174 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act saves accrued rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities, proceedings and orders under the repealed law. The benefit already conferred under the earlier government order was treated as a saved right, and the withdrawing order was found to ignore the saving clause, especially section 174(2)(c). The impugned withdrawal was therefore quashed, the deferment could not be treated as extinguished merely due to repeal, and the State was directed to take a fresh decision while interim protection against recovery continued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1642 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367906</link>
      <description>Deferment of VAT granted to a sick industrial unit under a rehabilitation scheme was held to survive repeal of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act because section 174 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act saves accrued rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities, proceedings and orders under the repealed law. The benefit already conferred under the earlier government order was treated as a saved right, and the withdrawing order was found to ignore the saving clause, especially section 174(2)(c). The impugned withdrawal was therefore quashed, the deferment could not be treated as extinguished merely due to repeal, and the State was directed to take a fresh decision while interim protection against recovery continued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>