<?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>1997 (2) TMI 509 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158734</link>
    <description>Where a taxing statute does not define &quot;edible oil,&quot; the term is construed in its ordinary sense and by reference to allied control orders and market use. Maize (corn) oil was held to fall within that description because the relevant storage control order treated oil used directly or after processing for human consumption as edible oil, and the supply was intended for manufacture of vegetable ghee and other edible oils. Food adulteration standards were treated as serving a different regulatory purpose and were not decisive for tax classification. The oil was therefore held to be edible oil, and the higher tax rate applicable to non-edible oil could not be imposed against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:14:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 509 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158734</link>
      <description>Where a taxing statute does not define &quot;edible oil,&quot; the term is construed in its ordinary sense and by reference to allied control orders and market use. Maize (corn) oil was held to fall within that description because the relevant storage control order treated oil used directly or after processing for human consumption as edible oil, and the supply was intended for manufacture of vegetable ghee and other edible oils. Food adulteration standards were treated as serving a different regulatory purpose and were not decisive for tax classification. The oil was therefore held to be edible oil, and the higher tax rate applicable to non-edible oil could not be imposed against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>