<?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>1988 (9) TMI 312 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102865</link>
    <description>Section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid fiscal exemption provision because it served public interest by encouraging industrial dispersion, development of backward areas, and employment generation. The Court held that new units in backward areas formed a separate class with a different competitive position from established units, so the exemption policy had an intelligible basis and did not offend Article 14. The distinction between edible oil units and non-edible oil units was also sustained as a real and workable fiscal classification, and washed cotton seed oil was not treated as edible oil because it was not fit for direct human consumption without further processing. The challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 21 failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (9) TMI 312 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102865</link>
      <description>Section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid fiscal exemption provision because it served public interest by encouraging industrial dispersion, development of backward areas, and employment generation. The Court held that new units in backward areas formed a separate class with a different competitive position from established units, so the exemption policy had an intelligible basis and did not offend Article 14. The distinction between edible oil units and non-edible oil units was also sustained as a real and workable fiscal classification, and washed cotton seed oil was not treated as edible oil because it was not fit for direct human consumption without further processing. The challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 21 failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>