<?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>2014 (3) TMI 864 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245416</link>
    <description>A clarificatory notification under an earlier sales tax exemption scheme operates retrospectively when it merely removes ambiguity in the existing exemption, but it cannot enlarge the benefit beyond the class of goods and industry already covered. The Court held that the later notification explained that continuation of exemption was limited to goods and industries that had been enjoying protection before the cut-off date, and not to a newly introduced or altered product line. Because the appellant and its predecessor had not manufactured the expanded goods during the protected period, exemption could not extend to those goods. The claim for sales tax exemption on the additional goods therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:22:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 864 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245416</link>
      <description>A clarificatory notification under an earlier sales tax exemption scheme operates retrospectively when it merely removes ambiguity in the existing exemption, but it cannot enlarge the benefit beyond the class of goods and industry already covered. The Court held that the later notification explained that continuation of exemption was limited to goods and industries that had been enjoying protection before the cut-off date, and not to a newly introduced or altered product line. Because the appellant and its predecessor had not manufactured the expanded goods during the protected period, exemption could not extend to those goods. The claim for sales tax exemption on the additional goods therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>