<?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 (11) TMI 539 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162295</link>
    <description>A notification adding pan masala and gutka to the First Schedule of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was upheld because the taxing scheme treated First Schedule goods as taxable and Third Schedule goods as exempt, and the impugned notification operated by creating a specific taxable entry rather than amending the exempt schedule. The court held that &quot;tobacco&quot; had to be understood with reference to the Central Excise framework, but a later specific entry could validly subject a commodity to tax even if it might also fall within a broader exempt description. The petition therefore failed, and the notification remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:54:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 539 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162295</link>
      <description>A notification adding pan masala and gutka to the First Schedule of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was upheld because the taxing scheme treated First Schedule goods as taxable and Third Schedule goods as exempt, and the impugned notification operated by creating a specific taxable entry rather than amending the exempt schedule. The court held that &quot;tobacco&quot; had to be understood with reference to the Central Excise framework, but a later specific entry could validly subject a commodity to tax even if it might also fall within a broader exempt description. The petition therefore failed, and the notification remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>