<?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>1977 (1) TMI 130 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151245</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption entry covering &quot;cereals and pulses in all forms&quot; was construed broadly by reference to statutory history and the ordinary meaning of cereal. The phrase &quot;in all forms&quot; was held not to be limited to raw or merely husked grain, but to extend to commercially prepared products that retain the essential identity of the original cereal. On that basis, maida was treated as a form of cereal, and shevaya or vermicelli made from maida, without change in chemical composition, was also covered by the exempt entry. The Revenue&#039;s narrower classification was rejected, and the exemption was applied to both goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:05:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (1) TMI 130 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151245</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption entry covering &quot;cereals and pulses in all forms&quot; was construed broadly by reference to statutory history and the ordinary meaning of cereal. The phrase &quot;in all forms&quot; was held not to be limited to raw or merely husked grain, but to extend to commercially prepared products that retain the essential identity of the original cereal. On that basis, maida was treated as a form of cereal, and shevaya or vermicelli made from maida, without change in chemical composition, was also covered by the exempt entry. The Revenue&#039;s narrower classification was rejected, and the exemption was applied to both goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>