<?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>1956 (2) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127523</link>
    <description>The enhanced sales tax proviso applying to articles of food and drink sold in a hotel, boarding house or restaurant was construed as covering sales intended for consumption on the premises where such facilities exist. A sweet-stall attached to a restaurant, selling sweets mainly for takeaway and lacking seating or similar consumption facilities, did not fall within that description merely because it formed part of the same business, shared a proprietor, or exchanged stock with the restaurant. Common preparation or operational connection did not change the character of the stall for this purpose, so the enhanced rate was not leviable on the sweet-stall turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:11:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (2) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127523</link>
      <description>The enhanced sales tax proviso applying to articles of food and drink sold in a hotel, boarding house or restaurant was construed as covering sales intended for consumption on the premises where such facilities exist. A sweet-stall attached to a restaurant, selling sweets mainly for takeaway and lacking seating or similar consumption facilities, did not fall within that description merely because it formed part of the same business, shared a proprietor, or exchanged stock with the restaurant. Common preparation or operational connection did not change the character of the stall for this purpose, so the enhanced rate was not leviable on the sweet-stall turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>