<?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 (4) TMI 363 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105914</link>
    <description>Dog feed and cat feed were held to fall outside entry 5 of the First Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which grouped &quot;animal feed and feed supplements&quot; and then used &quot;namely&quot; to introduce specific items such as poultry feed, cattle feed, pig feed, fish feed, fish meal, prawn feed and shrimp feed. The Court treated the enumerated items as exhaustive, so the entry could not be extended to unlisted goods by broad construction. Reliance on an earlier decision concerning section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 was rejected as inapplicable because this was a goods-classification question, not interpretation of connected statutory sentences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 363 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105914</link>
      <description>Dog feed and cat feed were held to fall outside entry 5 of the First Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which grouped &quot;animal feed and feed supplements&quot; and then used &quot;namely&quot; to introduce specific items such as poultry feed, cattle feed, pig feed, fish feed, fish meal, prawn feed and shrimp feed. The Court treated the enumerated items as exhaustive, so the entry could not be extended to unlisted goods by broad construction. Reliance on an earlier decision concerning section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 was rejected as inapplicable because this was a goods-classification question, not interpretation of connected statutory sentences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>