<?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>2022 (12) TMI 1046 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431929</link>
    <description>Eligibility under an industrial incentive scheme must be strictly satisfied before subsidy or exemption can be claimed. The unit qualified for fixed capital investment subsidy because it met the Scheme conditions, including registration, eligibility and the required VAT-related certificates, and the double-benefit objection failed. Interest subsidy was payable only up to 31 August 2011 because the Scheme required full payment within the due dates and the prescribed certificate, which were not shown for the later period; the subsequent one-time settlement did not extend entitlement. Waiver of electricity duty was sustained, and promissory estoppel could not enlarge benefits beyond the Scheme terms or override unmet conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:07:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1046 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431929</link>
      <description>Eligibility under an industrial incentive scheme must be strictly satisfied before subsidy or exemption can be claimed. The unit qualified for fixed capital investment subsidy because it met the Scheme conditions, including registration, eligibility and the required VAT-related certificates, and the double-benefit objection failed. Interest subsidy was payable only up to 31 August 2011 because the Scheme required full payment within the due dates and the prescribed certificate, which were not shown for the later period; the subsequent one-time settlement did not extend entitlement. Waiver of electricity duty was sustained, and promissory estoppel could not enlarge benefits beyond the Scheme terms or override unmet conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>