<?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>2004 (9) TMI 610 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161848</link>
    <description>Duty-free shop sales at airport arrival and departure halls were treated as requiring factual examination to determine whether they fall within the constitutional and statutory import exemption, rather than being finally classed as exempt in writ proceedings. The Court also noted that exemption under the State taxing exemption power may validly be confined to a distinct class of dealers where reasonable classification exists and the object of the notification is rationally served. On that basis, the challenge to the exemption granted to other operators was not accepted, while the petitioner&#039;s own exemption request was directed to be reconsidered on its merits after hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:25:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 610 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161848</link>
      <description>Duty-free shop sales at airport arrival and departure halls were treated as requiring factual examination to determine whether they fall within the constitutional and statutory import exemption, rather than being finally classed as exempt in writ proceedings. The Court also noted that exemption under the State taxing exemption power may validly be confined to a distinct class of dealers where reasonable classification exists and the object of the notification is rationally served. On that basis, the challenge to the exemption granted to other operators was not accepted, while the petitioner&#039;s own exemption request was directed to be reconsidered on its merits after hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>