<?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>2021 (1) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402654</link>
    <description>Refund entitlement for sales tax paid on raw materials depended on the applicable industrial incentive Government Orders and the departmental certificate issued for the new unit. The record showed that the unit was certified as commencing production on 14.04.1977 and was eligible for incentives under the Government Order dated 12.01.1977. The later clarification and departmental certificate supported the refund claim, and the relevant Government Order did not impose the monetary restriction asserted by the State. On that evidence, the Tribunal&#039;s grant of refund was treated as a factual-cum-legal determination showing no error of law, so interference in revision was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402654</link>
      <description>Refund entitlement for sales tax paid on raw materials depended on the applicable industrial incentive Government Orders and the departmental certificate issued for the new unit. The record showed that the unit was certified as commencing production on 14.04.1977 and was eligible for incentives under the Government Order dated 12.01.1977. The later clarification and departmental certificate supported the refund claim, and the relevant Government Order did not impose the monetary restriction asserted by the State. On that evidence, the Tribunal&#039;s grant of refund was treated as a factual-cum-legal determination showing no error of law, so interference in revision was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>