<?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>2000 (1) TMI 837 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105028</link>
    <description>A sales tax notification granting a concessional rate for &quot;light commercial vehicles&quot; had to be construed on its own words and commercial context. The Court declined to import the definition of &quot;light motor vehicle&quot; from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 because the notification did not refer to that statute or impose a use-based limitation. As the respondents&#039; vehicles were understood in trade and by the Government as light commercial vehicles, they fell within the notification and qualified for the concessional rate. The revenue&#039;s contrary reading was rejected because it would create an unsupported tax distinction based on intended use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 837 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105028</link>
      <description>A sales tax notification granting a concessional rate for &quot;light commercial vehicles&quot; had to be construed on its own words and commercial context. The Court declined to import the definition of &quot;light motor vehicle&quot; from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 because the notification did not refer to that statute or impose a use-based limitation. As the respondents&#039; vehicles were understood in trade and by the Government as light commercial vehicles, they fell within the notification and qualified for the concessional rate. The revenue&#039;s contrary reading was rejected because it would create an unsupported tax distinction based on intended use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>