https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378273 The scope of exemption under Section 7(6) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, read with Section 11(1)(i) of the Haryana Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, was treated as covered by binding precedent on identical facts. The High Court noted that its earlier decision in VATAP-150-2018 and connected matters had already rejected the State's challenge both on merits and as time barred. Applying that precedent, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's order granting exemption to the SEZ developer/co-developer and dismissed the State's appeal as barred by limitation and on merits. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378273 The scope of exemption under Section 7(6) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, read with Section 11(1)(i) of the Haryana Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, was treated as covered by binding precedent on identical facts. The High Court noted that its earlier decision in VATAP-150-2018 and connected matters had already rejected the State's challenge both on merits and as time barred. Applying that precedent, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's order granting exemption to the SEZ developer/co-developer and dismissed the State's appeal as barred by limitation and on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378273