<?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>2013 (1) TMI 465 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220360</link>
    <description>Synthetic wire fabric made of nylon and polyester monofilament yarn was treated as falling within the broad expression &quot;textile fabrics of all varieties&quot; in Entry 81 of Schedule I to the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The controlling test was whether the goods answered the description of textile fabric, and the fact that they were woven was material; their lack of softness or lustre like silk was legally irrelevant. The text also treats references to the absence of additional excise duty and legislative history as immaterial to classification under the entry. On that basis, the denial of sales tax exemption was described as erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:53:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 465 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220360</link>
      <description>Synthetic wire fabric made of nylon and polyester monofilament yarn was treated as falling within the broad expression &quot;textile fabrics of all varieties&quot; in Entry 81 of Schedule I to the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The controlling test was whether the goods answered the description of textile fabric, and the fact that they were woven was material; their lack of softness or lustre like silk was legally irrelevant. The text also treats references to the absence of additional excise duty and legislative history as immaterial to classification under the entry. On that basis, the denial of sales tax exemption was described as erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>