<?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 (9) TMI 477 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412132</link>
    <description>A competent industrial eligibility certificate cannot be ignored by sales tax authorities when determining hotel exemption under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989; on the facts stated, the unit was treated as a hotel and not as an ineligible guest house or restaurant, so exemption under Entry 30-FFFF was available. In respect of first-point sale relief under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, a subsequent seller of cold drinks need only show that it was not the first seller and produced purchase invoices; proof of actual tax collection by the earlier seller was not required, so the relief was allowable. For IMFL, however, the turnover had to be split between sub-periods because first-point taxability changed during the relevant period, and fresh factual enquiry was necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2022 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 477 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412132</link>
      <description>A competent industrial eligibility certificate cannot be ignored by sales tax authorities when determining hotel exemption under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989; on the facts stated, the unit was treated as a hotel and not as an ineligible guest house or restaurant, so exemption under Entry 30-FFFF was available. In respect of first-point sale relief under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, a subsequent seller of cold drinks need only show that it was not the first seller and produced purchase invoices; proof of actual tax collection by the earlier seller was not required, so the relief was allowable. For IMFL, however, the turnover had to be split between sub-periods because first-point taxability changed during the relevant period, and fresh factual enquiry was necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>