<?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>2002 (2) TMI 1297 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160882</link>
    <description>Mineral water could be broadly understood as falling within &quot;soft drink&quot; for classification purposes, but the administrative classification was not disturbed. Sales tax exemption could be claimed only if supported by a notification issued under section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and the Industrial Policy Resolution by itself did not confer enforceable exemption. The relevant exemption entry covered water but expressly excluded aerated water and mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers, so the court could not enlarge the exemption by judicial direction. The writ petitioner was therefore not entitled to sales tax exemption, and the challenge to the impugned communication failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:29:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1297 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160882</link>
      <description>Mineral water could be broadly understood as falling within &quot;soft drink&quot; for classification purposes, but the administrative classification was not disturbed. Sales tax exemption could be claimed only if supported by a notification issued under section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and the Industrial Policy Resolution by itself did not confer enforceable exemption. The relevant exemption entry covered water but expressly excluded aerated water and mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers, so the court could not enlarge the exemption by judicial direction. The writ petitioner was therefore not entitled to sales tax exemption, and the challenge to the impugned communication failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>