<?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 540 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162331</link>
    <description>An exemption notification in a fiscal statute must first be construed strictly to determine whether the claimant and the goods fall within its scope, and only then given a fair and liberal effect consistent with its object. Applying that approach to the sale of Gopuram brand bar soap, the Court treated the benefit as intended for recognised selling dealers dealing in specified village-industry products, rather than as a general commodity exemption unrelated to the dealer&#039;s status. It also noted that an identical benefit had already been finally upheld on the same facts, and a contrary view would create discriminatory treatment. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption for the relevant assessment year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:47:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 540 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162331</link>
      <description>An exemption notification in a fiscal statute must first be construed strictly to determine whether the claimant and the goods fall within its scope, and only then given a fair and liberal effect consistent with its object. Applying that approach to the sale of Gopuram brand bar soap, the Court treated the benefit as intended for recognised selling dealers dealing in specified village-industry products, rather than as a general commodity exemption unrelated to the dealer&#039;s status. It also noted that an identical benefit had already been finally upheld on the same facts, and a contrary view would create discriminatory treatment. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption for the relevant assessment year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>