<?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>1970 (3) TMI 113 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149785</link>
    <description>In construing the taxing entry for &quot;tobacco products,&quot; the HC applied the common parlance or commercial sense test rather than a narrow technical definition. A commodity is to be judged by how consumers and sellers understand its character, and mitha gundi was treated as an article valued for its tobacco content by a distinct class of consumers despite containing only a small percentage of tobacco. The Court also reiterated that ambiguity in a taxing statute must be resolved in favour of the subject, and found no meaningful distinction between &quot;tobacco preparations&quot; and &quot;tobacco products&quot; absent a clear definition. Mitha gundi was accordingly held to be a tobacco product and not liable to tax under the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 14:59:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (3) TMI 113 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149785</link>
      <description>In construing the taxing entry for &quot;tobacco products,&quot; the HC applied the common parlance or commercial sense test rather than a narrow technical definition. A commodity is to be judged by how consumers and sellers understand its character, and mitha gundi was treated as an article valued for its tobacco content by a distinct class of consumers despite containing only a small percentage of tobacco. The Court also reiterated that ambiguity in a taxing statute must be resolved in favour of the subject, and found no meaningful distinction between &quot;tobacco preparations&quot; and &quot;tobacco products&quot; absent a clear definition. Mitha gundi was accordingly held to be a tobacco product and not liable to tax under the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>