<?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 (8) TMI 461 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159198</link>
    <description>A concessional sales tax notification granting reduced rates to selected electronic goods applied only to items specifically included in its Schedule. An electronic musical door bell, not being listed, could not claim the benefit merely because similar goods were later added under a subsequent notification. The exclusion was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory, since the notification reflected a policy choice to confine the concession to selected items. A dealer is entitled to exemption or concession only when the notification&#039;s conditions are strictly satisfied, and the exclusion was held not violative of Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:18:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 461 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159198</link>
      <description>A concessional sales tax notification granting reduced rates to selected electronic goods applied only to items specifically included in its Schedule. An electronic musical door bell, not being listed, could not claim the benefit merely because similar goods were later added under a subsequent notification. The exclusion was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory, since the notification reflected a policy choice to confine the concession to selected items. A dealer is entitled to exemption or concession only when the notification&#039;s conditions are strictly satisfied, and the exclusion was held not violative of Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>