<?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>2006 (9) TMI 496 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162025</link>
    <description>Where a fiscal incentive scheme uses an undefined commodity description, the expression must be understood by statutory classification and accepted commercial parlance, not by a purchaser&#039;s chosen end-use. Sodium petroleum sulphonate was treated as &quot;detergent&quot; for subsidy purposes because tariff classification, dictionary meaning, and commercial understanding showed it to be commonly known and used as a detergent, and the scheme contained no express exclusion. The rejection of subsidy based solely on the purchaser&#039;s declared end-use was therefore outside the proper scheme framework and open to writ challenge. The rejection order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:13:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 496 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162025</link>
      <description>Where a fiscal incentive scheme uses an undefined commodity description, the expression must be understood by statutory classification and accepted commercial parlance, not by a purchaser&#039;s chosen end-use. Sodium petroleum sulphonate was treated as &quot;detergent&quot; for subsidy purposes because tariff classification, dictionary meaning, and commercial understanding showed it to be commonly known and used as a detergent, and the scheme contained no express exclusion. The rejection of subsidy based solely on the purchaser&#039;s declared end-use was therefore outside the proper scheme framework and open to writ challenge. The rejection order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>