<?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>1986 (2) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154503</link>
    <description>A writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable where the dispute concerned whether a commodity fell within a sales tax exemption entry and the controversy turned on the true meaning of the entry. The exemption entry had to be construed in its ordinary, natural and popular sense as understood in trade, and the assessee bore the burden of proving clear coverage. On that approach, egg, live poultry and dressed poultry were not understood as &quot;meat&quot; in item 11 of Schedule III, and the later separate entry for fresh eggs and poultry reinforced that distinction. The exemption claim therefore failed and the taxing authorities&#039; classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:31:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154503</link>
      <description>A writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable where the dispute concerned whether a commodity fell within a sales tax exemption entry and the controversy turned on the true meaning of the entry. The exemption entry had to be construed in its ordinary, natural and popular sense as understood in trade, and the assessee bore the burden of proving clear coverage. On that approach, egg, live poultry and dressed poultry were not understood as &quot;meat&quot; in item 11 of Schedule III, and the later separate entry for fresh eggs and poultry reinforced that distinction. The exemption claim therefore failed and the taxing authorities&#039; classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>