<?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>2023 (10) TMI 953 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444730</link>
    <description>An amended exemption notification was construed to extend Central Sales Tax relief to new industrial units commencing commercial production between 01.08.2006 and 31.03.2013 for the full incentive period of 6 years and 8 months, because the eligibility clause and the duration clause had to be read together according to their plain language. The notification&#039;s non obstante clause in the duration provision could not be ignored by reference to administrative minutes or proposals. The statutory scrutiny procedure for returns under Section 60 and Rule 44 was also held mandatory; the authority was confined to the prescribed notice-based process and could not exceed that procedure, so the impugned scrutiny order and related demand were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 953 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444730</link>
      <description>An amended exemption notification was construed to extend Central Sales Tax relief to new industrial units commencing commercial production between 01.08.2006 and 31.03.2013 for the full incentive period of 6 years and 8 months, because the eligibility clause and the duration clause had to be read together according to their plain language. The notification&#039;s non obstante clause in the duration provision could not be ignored by reference to administrative minutes or proposals. The statutory scrutiny procedure for returns under Section 60 and Rule 44 was also held mandatory; the authority was confined to the prescribed notice-based process and could not exceed that procedure, so the impugned scrutiny order and related demand were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>