<?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>2007 (11) TMI 394 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105797</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption under an incentive order for certified small-scale industrial units was interpreted to apply to a unit engaged in bulk purchase and repacking of edible oil. The Court treated the term &quot;manufacture&quot; in the exemption scheme as requiring a liberal construction consistent with the object of promoting industrial activity, rather than a narrow excise-based meaning. Because the competent authority had certified the unit and the exemption was granted with knowledge of its repacking activity, the State could not later deny the benefit on the ground that no manufacture had occurred. The exemption was therefore held to be available to the unit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 394 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105797</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption under an incentive order for certified small-scale industrial units was interpreted to apply to a unit engaged in bulk purchase and repacking of edible oil. The Court treated the term &quot;manufacture&quot; in the exemption scheme as requiring a liberal construction consistent with the object of promoting industrial activity, rather than a narrow excise-based meaning. Because the competent authority had certified the unit and the exemption was granted with knowledge of its repacking activity, the State could not later deny the benefit on the ground that no manufacture had occurred. The exemption was therefore held to be available to the unit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>