<?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 509 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162666</link>
    <description>An exemption for a poultry farmer or hatchery in the State was confined to turnover from chicks raised and chicken reared in that State; sales of chicks and chicken brought from outside Kerala did not qualify. The court reasoned that the notification treated the dealer as a producer engaged in poultry farming or hatchery operations, not as an ordinary trader, and extending the exemption to outside-sourced goods would create an anomalous advantage. The later notification was treated as clarificatory of the original exemption, not as imposing a fresh condition, and the assessment on the disputed turnover was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:22:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 509 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162666</link>
      <description>An exemption for a poultry farmer or hatchery in the State was confined to turnover from chicks raised and chicken reared in that State; sales of chicks and chicken brought from outside Kerala did not qualify. The court reasoned that the notification treated the dealer as a producer engaged in poultry farming or hatchery operations, not as an ordinary trader, and extending the exemption to outside-sourced goods would create an anomalous advantage. The later notification was treated as clarificatory of the original exemption, not as imposing a fresh condition, and the assessment on the disputed turnover was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>