<?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>2011 (4) TMI 528 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206765</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications in fiscal law are construed strictly according to their plain and common parlance meaning. Applying that approach, the Court read the entry as a whole and held that the words &quot;biology instruments&quot; were confined to instruments used for teaching biology in schools and colleges, with associated items in the notification drawing colour from one another under noscitur a sociis. Goods used in hospitals, medical colleges, research laboratories, or advanced scientific work were outside the exemption. The assessee&#039;s own treatment of the goods as taxable also supported the conclusion that they did not fall within the notification, and the broader claim for exemption was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 528 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206765</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications in fiscal law are construed strictly according to their plain and common parlance meaning. Applying that approach, the Court read the entry as a whole and held that the words &quot;biology instruments&quot; were confined to instruments used for teaching biology in schools and colleges, with associated items in the notification drawing colour from one another under noscitur a sociis. Goods used in hospitals, medical colleges, research laboratories, or advanced scientific work were outside the exemption. The assessee&#039;s own treatment of the goods as taxable also supported the conclusion that they did not fall within the notification, and the broader claim for exemption was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>