<?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>1967 (10) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148259</link>
    <description>An amended sales-tax entry must be read in its statutory context, and a general word inserted into a composite tariff item does not expand coverage beyond the class indicated by the associated words. Applying ordinary construction and ejusdem generis, the Madras HC held that the word &quot;machinery&quot; in entry 41 remained confined to electrically operated machinery because the entry&#039;s language and structure showed that the qualifying words continued to control its scope. Textile machinery that was not electrical goods therefore did not fall within the entry and was not subject to single-point levy under it; the assessments were set aside and normal multi-point assessment applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:55:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (10) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148259</link>
      <description>An amended sales-tax entry must be read in its statutory context, and a general word inserted into a composite tariff item does not expand coverage beyond the class indicated by the associated words. Applying ordinary construction and ejusdem generis, the Madras HC held that the word &quot;machinery&quot; in entry 41 remained confined to electrically operated machinery because the entry&#039;s language and structure showed that the qualifying words continued to control its scope. Textile machinery that was not electrical goods therefore did not fall within the entry and was not subject to single-point levy under it; the assessments were set aside and normal multi-point assessment applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>