https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396844 The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and the revision order, holding that the Appellant was entitled to a 50% subsidy, not 75%. The SLSC's decisions granting 75% subsidy were erroneous and unauthorized. The State Government's exercise of revision powers was valid, and the Appellant was required to refund the excess subsidy with interest at 12% per annum. 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 The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and the revision order, holding that the Appellant was entitled to a 50% subsidy, not 75%. The SLSC's decisions granting 75% subsidy were erroneous and unauthorized. The State Government's exercise of revision powers was valid, and the Appellant was required to refund the excess subsidy with interest at 12% per annum. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396844