<?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>1955 (9) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127497</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC interpreted the exemption entry for &quot;fresh vegetables&quot; under the Sales Tax Act and held that sugar-cane fell within that expression. Because &quot;vegetable&quot; was not defined in the Act and was capable of more than one construction, the Court applied the ordinary and natural meaning of the word and accepted a wide reading that included sugar-cane. It also held that any genuine ambiguity in a taxing statute must be resolved in favour of the subject. Later or analogous legislation expressly referring to sugar-cane did not justify an exclusionary inference from the exemption provision, and sugar-cane was therefore exempt from sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:10:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (9) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127497</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC interpreted the exemption entry for &quot;fresh vegetables&quot; under the Sales Tax Act and held that sugar-cane fell within that expression. Because &quot;vegetable&quot; was not defined in the Act and was capable of more than one construction, the Court applied the ordinary and natural meaning of the word and accepted a wide reading that included sugar-cane. It also held that any genuine ambiguity in a taxing statute must be resolved in favour of the subject. Later or analogous legislation expressly referring to sugar-cane did not justify an exclusionary inference from the exemption provision, and sugar-cane was therefore exempt from sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>