<?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>1989 (5) TMI 298 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102973</link>
    <description>The exemption notification under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was construed strictly, and the Court held that it did not cover country bricks and country tiles manufactured by the petitioner&#039;s members unless they were produced by village artisans or co-operative societies. The amended language could not be read grammatically to dispense with that requirement, because such an interpretation would defeat the object of the exemption, which was intended to assist poor village artisans. The Court accepted the High Court&#039;s interpretation and declined interference, so the exemption remained unavailable to the petitioner&#039;s members.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 298 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102973</link>
      <description>The exemption notification under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was construed strictly, and the Court held that it did not cover country bricks and country tiles manufactured by the petitioner&#039;s members unless they were produced by village artisans or co-operative societies. The amended language could not be read grammatically to dispense with that requirement, because such an interpretation would defeat the object of the exemption, which was intended to assist poor village artisans. The Court accepted the High Court&#039;s interpretation and declined interference, so the exemption remained unavailable to the petitioner&#039;s members.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>