<?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>1962 (1) TMI 42 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128383</link>
    <description>The Mysore High Court considered whether turnover from purchases of raw wool could be taxed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, by construing &quot;sales&quot; in section 7 to include &quot;purchases&quot; or by supplying the word &quot;purchase&quot; as an omitted term. It held that the Act consistently distinguished sales from purchases, and that a taxing provision cannot be expanded by implication, extension of language, or judicial correction of an alleged omission unless the statute clearly shows that intention. The court declined to treat the omission as a casus omissus, held that &quot;sales&quot; did not include &quot;purchases&quot;, and concluded that the impugned purchases were not taxable on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:58:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (1) TMI 42 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128383</link>
      <description>The Mysore High Court considered whether turnover from purchases of raw wool could be taxed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, by construing &quot;sales&quot; in section 7 to include &quot;purchases&quot; or by supplying the word &quot;purchase&quot; as an omitted term. It held that the Act consistently distinguished sales from purchases, and that a taxing provision cannot be expanded by implication, extension of language, or judicial correction of an alleged omission unless the statute clearly shows that intention. The court declined to treat the omission as a casus omissus, held that &quot;sales&quot; did not include &quot;purchases&quot;, and concluded that the impugned purchases were not taxable on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>