<?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>2005 (8) TMI 121 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47494</link>
    <description>A sales tax incentive scheme must be construed in light of its industrial development purpose, not by importing the excise-law meaning of manufacture. Where the assessee made full disclosure, the competent industrial authority scrutinised eligibility through the prescribed mechanism, and a final eligibility certificate was issued and accepted by the tax department, the sales tax authority could not reopen that determination under revisional powers on a contrary view of manufacture. A later cancellation circular operated prospectively only and did not affect an exemption period already expired. The withdrawal of benefit, show cause notices, and demand order were therefore unsustainable and quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 121 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47494</link>
      <description>A sales tax incentive scheme must be construed in light of its industrial development purpose, not by importing the excise-law meaning of manufacture. Where the assessee made full disclosure, the competent industrial authority scrutinised eligibility through the prescribed mechanism, and a final eligibility certificate was issued and accepted by the tax department, the sales tax authority could not reopen that determination under revisional powers on a contrary view of manufacture. A later cancellation circular operated prospectively only and did not affect an exemption period already expired. The withdrawal of benefit, show cause notices, and demand order were therefore unsustainable and quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>