<?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>2026 (1) TMI 711 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784955</link>
    <description>Rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules extended sales tax concession only to eligible industrial units, including units in pipeline, where the amended conditions were satisfied as on 30.04.2000: registration with the Department of Industries, arranged land or premises, finance application to a regular financial institution, and commencement of production within time. For expanded units, the relevant IEM or registration for the expansion was obtained after the cut-off date, and the required conditions were not established on that date. The plea that later registration related back to the original unit was rejected because the concession was claimed only for the expanded capacity, so the statutory conditions had to be met for that expansion. Denial of the concession was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 711 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784955</link>
      <description>Rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules extended sales tax concession only to eligible industrial units, including units in pipeline, where the amended conditions were satisfied as on 30.04.2000: registration with the Department of Industries, arranged land or premises, finance application to a regular financial institution, and commencement of production within time. For expanded units, the relevant IEM or registration for the expansion was obtained after the cut-off date, and the required conditions were not established on that date. The plea that later registration related back to the original unit was rejected because the concession was claimed only for the expanded capacity, so the statutory conditions had to be met for that expansion. Denial of the concession was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>