<?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>1984 (4) TMI 259 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154119</link>
    <description>Water pumps and pumping sets specially designed for agriculturists and found on evidence to be exclusively used in agricultural operations fell within the entry for agricultural machinery and implements, because the qualifying words attached to that entry controlled classification. The separate entry for water pumps and pumping sets did not displace that result, as the legislative history showed it was introduced to preserve the earlier tax position rather than to exclude genuinely agricultural equipment. The specific-over-general rule did not assist the Revenue, since machinery satisfying the agricultural-use condition remained a distinct class. Classification was therefore in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:02:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (4) TMI 259 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154119</link>
      <description>Water pumps and pumping sets specially designed for agriculturists and found on evidence to be exclusively used in agricultural operations fell within the entry for agricultural machinery and implements, because the qualifying words attached to that entry controlled classification. The separate entry for water pumps and pumping sets did not displace that result, as the legislative history showed it was introduced to preserve the earlier tax position rather than to exclude genuinely agricultural equipment. The specific-over-general rule did not assist the Revenue, since machinery satisfying the agricultural-use condition remained a distinct class. Classification was therefore in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>