https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396844 A fiscal incentive scheme must be construed strictly, so a subsidy benefit cannot exceed what the scheme expressly permits. The Court held that the Board's direction did not amount to a valid grant of 75% capital investment subsidy, and the appellant was entitled only to 50%. It further held that the State could revise a Screening Committee order that was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue within the scheme's prescribed period, and recover the excess subsidy. For interest, the Court found that 18% was not justified because the excess arose from administrative error rather than proved breach; interest was payable at 12% under the undertaking. en-us Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396844 A fiscal incentive scheme must be construed strictly, so a subsidy benefit cannot exceed what the scheme expressly permits. The Court held that the Board's direction did not amount to a valid grant of 75% capital investment subsidy, and the appellant was entitled only to 50%. It further held that the State could revise a Screening Committee order that was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue within the scheme's prescribed period, and recover the excess subsidy. For interest, the Court found that 18% was not justified because the excess arose from administrative error rather than proved breach; interest was payable at 12% under the undertaking. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396844