<?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 (8) TMI 268 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157661</link>
    <description>Rule 42(B)(i)(a) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules was construed purposively within the Act&#039;s single-point taxation and set-off scheme. The Court held that the phrase &quot;sales tax or general sales tax ... recovered separately under the Act&quot; refers to tax actually recovered and paid, not merely the amount legally recoverable. It rejected a narrow reading of the definition of &quot;tax&quot; because the statutory context and refund-set-off provisions required a contextual meaning. The wider interpretation was adopted to avoid an unrealistic result and to preserve the object of the set-off provision; the assessee&#039;s set-off claim was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:09:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 268 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157661</link>
      <description>Rule 42(B)(i)(a) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules was construed purposively within the Act&#039;s single-point taxation and set-off scheme. The Court held that the phrase &quot;sales tax or general sales tax ... recovered separately under the Act&quot; refers to tax actually recovered and paid, not merely the amount legally recoverable. It rejected a narrow reading of the definition of &quot;tax&quot; because the statutory context and refund-set-off provisions required a contextual meaning. The wider interpretation was adopted to avoid an unrealistic result and to preserve the object of the set-off provision; the assessee&#039;s set-off claim was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>