<?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>2019 (3) TMI 1739 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286665</link>
    <description>A subsidy scheme must be read as a whole and harmoniously with its stated object; eligibility clauses cannot be isolated to defeat the scheme&#039;s purpose or extend benefits beyond the class intended to be assisted. The Bombay HC held that the Goa Entertainment Tax Based Subsidy for Cinema Houses Scheme, 2004 was designed to support existing cinema theatres needing upgradation, not brand new multiplexes already equipped with modern facilities. File notings and evidence could not override the notified Scheme, and the respondents failed to establish promissory estoppel or discrimination. The multiplex theatres were therefore not covered by the Scheme, and the subsidy decrees were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2020 07:41:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1739 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286665</link>
      <description>A subsidy scheme must be read as a whole and harmoniously with its stated object; eligibility clauses cannot be isolated to defeat the scheme&#039;s purpose or extend benefits beyond the class intended to be assisted. The Bombay HC held that the Goa Entertainment Tax Based Subsidy for Cinema Houses Scheme, 2004 was designed to support existing cinema theatres needing upgradation, not brand new multiplexes already equipped with modern facilities. File notings and evidence could not override the notified Scheme, and the respondents failed to establish promissory estoppel or discrimination. The multiplex theatres were therefore not covered by the Scheme, and the subsidy decrees were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>