<?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 (1) TMI 492 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158780</link>
    <description>An exemption notification granting concessional purchase tax at 2 per cent was confined to goods that had suffered entry tax in the hands of the selling dealer, and the Court held that its express terms could not be expanded to cover a purchasing dealer who had borne entry tax himself. Exemption notifications in fiscal law must be strictly construed, so the Court refused to add, subtract from, or rewrite the stated conditions. The record also did not show that the goods had suffered entry tax in the manner claimed by the petitioners, and the revisional authority had upheld the assessments. The notification was not struck down as discriminatory, and the challenge to the assessment orders failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:41:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 492 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158780</link>
      <description>An exemption notification granting concessional purchase tax at 2 per cent was confined to goods that had suffered entry tax in the hands of the selling dealer, and the Court held that its express terms could not be expanded to cover a purchasing dealer who had borne entry tax himself. Exemption notifications in fiscal law must be strictly construed, so the Court refused to add, subtract from, or rewrite the stated conditions. The record also did not show that the goods had suffered entry tax in the manner claimed by the petitioners, and the revisional authority had upheld the assessments. The notification was not struck down as discriminatory, and the challenge to the assessment orders failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>