<?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 (5) TMI 183 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157297</link>
    <description>Entry 50 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act treats &quot;exclusively&quot; as qualifying the specified dealer class, namely halwais, rather than limiting the range of exempt articles. Sales of articles ordinarily prepared by halwais remain exempt even where the dealer also sells other goods or conducts another business line. This construction aligns Entry 50 with similarly worded Entry 72 and applies the principle that taxing provisions should not be extended against the taxpayer; ambiguity is resolved in favour of the assessee. The contrary interpretation in Deluxe Dhaba was rejected, while Shiv Ram&#039;s approach was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:35:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 183 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157297</link>
      <description>Entry 50 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act treats &quot;exclusively&quot; as qualifying the specified dealer class, namely halwais, rather than limiting the range of exempt articles. Sales of articles ordinarily prepared by halwais remain exempt even where the dealer also sells other goods or conducts another business line. This construction aligns Entry 50 with similarly worded Entry 72 and applies the principle that taxing provisions should not be extended against the taxpayer; ambiguity is resolved in favour of the assessee. The contrary interpretation in Deluxe Dhaba was rejected, while Shiv Ram&#039;s approach was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>