<?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>1995 (11) TMI 400 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158453</link>
    <description>An exemption notification covering the husk of specified grains did not extend to rice bran because husk and bran were treated as distinct commodities in commercial understanding and by the manufacturing process. Rice bran is obtained during polishing of rice, not as the husk removed from paddy, and the separate mention of bran in the notification showed that only husk was exempted. Rice bran therefore remained taxable, and the exemption claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:23:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 400 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158453</link>
      <description>An exemption notification covering the husk of specified grains did not extend to rice bran because husk and bran were treated as distinct commodities in commercial understanding and by the manufacturing process. Rice bran is obtained during polishing of rice, not as the husk removed from paddy, and the separate mention of bran in the notification showed that only husk was exempted. Rice bran therefore remained taxable, and the exemption claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>