https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153273 The exemption for sugar under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was later narrowed by a notification expressly excluding batasha and illaichidana from its scope. A subsequent notification under section 3-A separately brought such sugar products to tax in the hands of the manufacturer or importer. The dealer's claim to exemption failed because the general sugar exemption could not override the later specific exclusion, and the earlier authorities had extended the exemption beyond its text. The dealer's cited precedents were distinguished since they did not concern an express exclusion of these goods. Batasha and illaichidana manufactured by the dealer were therefore liable to sales tax. en-us Mon, 19 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:47:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153273 The exemption for sugar under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was later narrowed by a notification expressly excluding batasha and illaichidana from its scope. A subsequent notification under section 3-A separately brought such sugar products to tax in the hands of the manufacturer or importer. The dealer's claim to exemption failed because the general sugar exemption could not override the later specific exclusion, and the earlier authorities had extended the exemption beyond its text. The dealer's cited precedents were distinguished since they did not concern an express exclusion of these goods. Batasha and illaichidana manufactured by the dealer were therefore liable to sales tax. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 19 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153273