<?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 (5) TMI 327 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105950</link>
    <description>A tax exemption notification for certified and truthfully labelled seeds had to be read in the alternative, because the later clarification used the phrase &quot;certified seeds and/or truthfully labelled seeds&quot; and showed that the two categories were not cumulative. The Tribunal and High Court erred by requiring both certification and truthful labelling to coexist before exemption could apply. The correct approach was to test the assessee&#039;s eligibility against the disjunctive standard, including whether the seeds were truthfully labelled on the evidence produced. The matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration on that factual issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 327 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105950</link>
      <description>A tax exemption notification for certified and truthfully labelled seeds had to be read in the alternative, because the later clarification used the phrase &quot;certified seeds and/or truthfully labelled seeds&quot; and showed that the two categories were not cumulative. The Tribunal and High Court erred by requiring both certification and truthful labelling to coexist before exemption could apply. The correct approach was to test the assessee&#039;s eligibility against the disjunctive standard, including whether the seeds were truthfully labelled on the evidence produced. The matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration on that factual issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>