<?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>1989 (5) TMI 310 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156146</link>
    <description>Zarda was treated as a distinct commercial commodity under the Orissa Sales Tax regime, not as chewing tobacco entitled to exemption. The taxing notifications drew a deliberate distinction between tobacco and its products on one side, and chewing tobacco, gudakhu, pan masala, gundi, zarda and snuff on the other. Because zarda had a separate identity, pricing structure, manufacturing process and market understanding, the State&#039;s classification was neither arbitrary nor artificial. Earlier authorities cited for exemption were distinguished on the basis of different statutory schemes and facts, and the separate taxable treatment of zarda was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 310 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156146</link>
      <description>Zarda was treated as a distinct commercial commodity under the Orissa Sales Tax regime, not as chewing tobacco entitled to exemption. The taxing notifications drew a deliberate distinction between tobacco and its products on one side, and chewing tobacco, gudakhu, pan masala, gundi, zarda and snuff on the other. Because zarda had a separate identity, pricing structure, manufacturing process and market understanding, the State&#039;s classification was neither arbitrary nor artificial. Earlier authorities cited for exemption were distinguished on the basis of different statutory schemes and facts, and the separate taxable treatment of zarda was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>