<?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>1963 (4) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128641</link>
    <description>State exemption notifications issued to align with the central fiscal scheme for declared goods had to be construed consistently with that scheme. Because the Central excise law treated sugar broadly as covering sugar in any form, the expression &quot;sugar&quot; in the notifications included sugar candy. On that construction, sugar candy qualified for exemption from sales tax and levy on its sale was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:22:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (4) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128641</link>
      <description>State exemption notifications issued to align with the central fiscal scheme for declared goods had to be construed consistently with that scheme. Because the Central excise law treated sugar broadly as covering sugar in any form, the expression &quot;sugar&quot; in the notifications included sugar candy. On that construction, sugar candy qualified for exemption from sales tax and levy on its sale was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>