<?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 (3) TMI 448 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105528</link>
    <description>Malted barley was held to fall within the expression &quot;foodgrains including cereals&quot; in the three U.P. Sales Tax notifications, even though it was not a cereal under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The notifications were treated as wider charging provisions than the Central Act definition, and the prior remand left that separate question open. On the material considered, &quot;grain&quot; was not confined to ungerminated seed, and malt was understood in its ordinary and commercial sense as a foodgrain. The Revenue, bearing the burden to show exclusion, failed to do so, and the concurrent findings below were not shown to be perverse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2024 16:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 448 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105528</link>
      <description>Malted barley was held to fall within the expression &quot;foodgrains including cereals&quot; in the three U.P. Sales Tax notifications, even though it was not a cereal under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The notifications were treated as wider charging provisions than the Central Act definition, and the prior remand left that separate question open. On the material considered, &quot;grain&quot; was not confined to ungerminated seed, and malt was understood in its ordinary and commercial sense as a foodgrain. The Revenue, bearing the burden to show exclusion, failed to do so, and the concurrent findings below were not shown to be perverse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>