<?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>1992 (4) TMI 222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156735</link>
    <description>In a composite tariff entry using the words &quot;iron and steel, that is to say&quot;, the expression was treated as broad enough to include alloy steel and stainless steel unless the statute clearly restricted it. Applying that construction, stainless steel wires and stainless steel tubes were held to fall within item 4 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as declared goods, and a narrower reading drawn from a sub-item was rejected. The Court also held that an admission-stage order on stainless steel wire was not binding because only its ratio could operate as precedent, and no reliable ratio emerged from the earlier summary decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:22:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156735</link>
      <description>In a composite tariff entry using the words &quot;iron and steel, that is to say&quot;, the expression was treated as broad enough to include alloy steel and stainless steel unless the statute clearly restricted it. Applying that construction, stainless steel wires and stainless steel tubes were held to fall within item 4 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as declared goods, and a narrower reading drawn from a sub-item was rejected. The Court also held that an admission-stage order on stainless steel wire was not binding because only its ratio could operate as precedent, and no reliable ratio emerged from the earlier summary decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>