<?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>1972 (9) TMI 139 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150504</link>
    <description>Where the assessing authority is said to have acted outside the Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available despite unexhausted appellate and revisional remedies, and the alternative-remedy objection was overruled. In construing the taxing entry, the court read &quot;perfumery&quot; in its ordinary sense and treated dhoop and agarbatti as perfumery, but held that the higher rate applied only to luxury goods. Articles widely used for religious worship and not regarded as necessities in common understanding did not fall within that description, so the reassessment at the enhanced rate was unsustainable and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 17:06:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (9) TMI 139 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150504</link>
      <description>Where the assessing authority is said to have acted outside the Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available despite unexhausted appellate and revisional remedies, and the alternative-remedy objection was overruled. In construing the taxing entry, the court read &quot;perfumery&quot; in its ordinary sense and treated dhoop and agarbatti as perfumery, but held that the higher rate applied only to luxury goods. Articles widely used for religious worship and not regarded as necessities in common understanding did not fall within that description, so the reassessment at the enhanced rate was unsustainable and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>