<?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>1979 (4) TMI 144 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152732</link>
    <description>Labels sold for stitching to garments were analysed under a taxing notification that covered &quot;laces&quot;. Applying the ordinary and common parlance meaning of the term, the HC held that the tape-like labels bearing the firm&#039;s name did not answer the description of lace. The revising authority&#039;s broader classification was therefore unsustainable, and the labels fell outside the notified taxable entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:38:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (4) TMI 144 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152732</link>
      <description>Labels sold for stitching to garments were analysed under a taxing notification that covered &quot;laces&quot;. Applying the ordinary and common parlance meaning of the term, the HC held that the tape-like labels bearing the firm&#039;s name did not answer the description of lace. The revising authority&#039;s broader classification was therefore unsustainable, and the labels fell outside the notified taxable entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>