<?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>1982 (1) TMI 163 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153144</link>
    <description>Sugar includes all forms of the commodity regardless of shape, texture, colour, density or name, so sugar-candy was treated as falling within the exempted article. Because sugar was already a tax-free item under the exemption entry, sugar-candy inherited the same exemption. The contrary view of the Delhi High Court was not followed in light of the binding Supreme Court interpretation, and the issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:18:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (1) TMI 163 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153144</link>
      <description>Sugar includes all forms of the commodity regardless of shape, texture, colour, density or name, so sugar-candy was treated as falling within the exempted article. Because sugar was already a tax-free item under the exemption entry, sugar-candy inherited the same exemption. The contrary view of the Delhi High Court was not followed in light of the binding Supreme Court interpretation, and the issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>