<?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>1971 (2) TMI 99 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150013</link>
    <description>Phawadas that are neither spades nor shovels were held to fall within the ordinary meaning of &quot;hoes (all kinds)&quot; in the sales tax notification. Because the term was undefined, its common meaning applied, and a hoe was treated as a distinct flat-bladed agricultural implement. The notification created a presumption that the named implement was agricultural in character. Once the assessee showed that the goods sold answered that description, no separate proof of principal agricultural use was required, and the burden shifted to the challenger to rebut the presumption. The goods were therefore covered by the exemption under Schedule I.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 18:19:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (2) TMI 99 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150013</link>
      <description>Phawadas that are neither spades nor shovels were held to fall within the ordinary meaning of &quot;hoes (all kinds)&quot; in the sales tax notification. Because the term was undefined, its common meaning applied, and a hoe was treated as a distinct flat-bladed agricultural implement. The notification created a presumption that the named implement was agricultural in character. Once the assessee showed that the goods sold answered that description, no separate proof of principal agricultural use was required, and the burden shifted to the challenger to rebut the presumption. The goods were therefore covered by the exemption under Schedule I.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>