<?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>1973 (3) TMI 127 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150468</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;meat&quot; in item No. 4 of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was construed in its ordinary and wider commercial sense, applying the common parlance approach to a taxing entry. On that basis, dressed chicken, described as white meat, was held to fall within the wider meaning of &quot;meat&quot; and therefore to qualify for sales tax exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 12:12:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (3) TMI 127 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150468</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;meat&quot; in item No. 4 of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was construed in its ordinary and wider commercial sense, applying the common parlance approach to a taxing entry. On that basis, dressed chicken, described as white meat, was held to fall within the wider meaning of &quot;meat&quot; and therefore to qualify for sales tax exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>