<?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>2024 (5) TMI 737 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752684</link>
    <description>HC dismissed State&#039;s appeal regarding imposition of financial cap on IPA (Investment Promotion Assistance) for a company under Special Package of Incentives. The company was entitled to IPA at 75% of VAT and CST paid for five years without any cap based on Fixed Capital Investment, as per eligibility certificate dated May 18, 2010. Court held that Additional Chief Secretary&#039;s order dated February 14, 2019 imposing financial cap was based on irrelevant materials and incorrect interpretation of government order dated March 2, 2006. State&#039;s action was found to be mala fide and arbitrary, designed to defeat company&#039;s legitimate claim for balance amount under the special package.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 07:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 737 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752684</link>
      <description>HC dismissed State&#039;s appeal regarding imposition of financial cap on IPA (Investment Promotion Assistance) for a company under Special Package of Incentives. The company was entitled to IPA at 75% of VAT and CST paid for five years without any cap based on Fixed Capital Investment, as per eligibility certificate dated May 18, 2010. Court held that Additional Chief Secretary&#039;s order dated February 14, 2019 imposing financial cap was based on irrelevant materials and incorrect interpretation of government order dated March 2, 2006. State&#039;s action was found to be mala fide and arbitrary, designed to defeat company&#039;s legitimate claim for balance amount under the special package.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>