https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245566 The Supreme Court held that the respondent-dealer, a manufacturer of glassware, does not qualify as a "type of glass" under the notification S.O. No.25 issued by the Government of Jharkhand. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the reduced tax rate of 3%. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and it was directed that no penalty should be imposed while recovering the tax difference for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2005-2006. No costs were awarded. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2017 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245566 The Supreme Court held that the respondent-dealer, a manufacturer of glassware, does not qualify as a "type of glass" under the notification S.O. No.25 issued by the Government of Jharkhand. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the reduced tax rate of 3%. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and it was directed that no penalty should be imposed while recovering the tax difference for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2005-2006. No costs were awarded. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245566