<?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>1965 (10) TMI 49 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=140076</link>
    <description>Entry 14 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was construed broadly to exempt cooked food and non-alcoholic drinks served by a hotel or eating establishment for consumption not only in or immediately outside the premises, but also at any other place outside the establishment, including a customer&#039;s premises. The enlarged phrase &quot;or outside&quot; was read as curing the narrower wording of the 1953 Act and removing the earlier mischief of taxing ordinary low-value hotel sales. A narrow reading that limited &quot;outside&quot; to the immediate vicinity was rejected because it would make the added words redundant and defeat the legislative purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:29:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (10) TMI 49 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=140076</link>
      <description>Entry 14 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was construed broadly to exempt cooked food and non-alcoholic drinks served by a hotel or eating establishment for consumption not only in or immediately outside the premises, but also at any other place outside the establishment, including a customer&#039;s premises. The enlarged phrase &quot;or outside&quot; was read as curing the narrower wording of the 1953 Act and removing the earlier mischief of taxing ordinary low-value hotel sales. A narrow reading that limited &quot;outside&quot; to the immediate vicinity was rejected because it would make the added words redundant and defeat the legislative purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=140076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>