<?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>1985 (3) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154254</link>
    <description>An alternative statutory remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; the court may entertain a petition where the assessment is alleged to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the governing notification. On the tax classification issue, woollen carpet yarn was held to fall within the phrase &quot;all varieties of yarn other than cotton yarn and knitting wool&quot; in the 27 February 1978 notification, because the wording was broad and had to be given its ordinary commercial meaning. The later notification was treated as an independent rate provision, and any ambiguity in the taxing language was resolved in favour of the assessee. The higher tax rate and related penalties were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:03:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154254</link>
      <description>An alternative statutory remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; the court may entertain a petition where the assessment is alleged to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the governing notification. On the tax classification issue, woollen carpet yarn was held to fall within the phrase &quot;all varieties of yarn other than cotton yarn and knitting wool&quot; in the 27 February 1978 notification, because the wording was broad and had to be given its ordinary commercial meaning. The later notification was treated as an independent rate provision, and any ambiguity in the taxing language was resolved in favour of the assessee. The higher tax rate and related penalties were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>