<?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 (9) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236638</link>
    <description>An exemption notification in fiscal law must be construed strictly, and a rebate of tax paid cannot be treated as an exemption granted &quot;to the full extent&quot; unless the notification clearly says so. The Court distinguished a trade tax rebate equal to the amount of entry tax paid from a later notification granting State Development Tax exemption to the full extent, holding that the two expressions carried different meanings and could not be read into each other. Applying strict construction, with support from ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis, the claim for exemption was rejected and the challenge to levy and recovery of State Development Tax failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236638</link>
      <description>An exemption notification in fiscal law must be construed strictly, and a rebate of tax paid cannot be treated as an exemption granted &quot;to the full extent&quot; unless the notification clearly says so. The Court distinguished a trade tax rebate equal to the amount of entry tax paid from a later notification granting State Development Tax exemption to the full extent, holding that the two expressions carried different meanings and could not be read into each other. Applying strict construction, with support from ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis, the claim for exemption was rejected and the challenge to levy and recovery of State Development Tax failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>