<?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>2009 (4) TMI 853 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163999</link>
    <description>Potato chips were treated as falling within the specific VAT entry for processed or preserved vegetables and fruits rather than the residuary schedule for the period before 16 October 2008. The relevant entry was read in an enlarged, inclusive sense, supported by examples such as jam, pickle, squash, paste and juices, showing that it was not confined to ordinary common parlance. Because the legislature had not excluded potato chips until the later amendment, and contemporaneous administrative understanding treated them as vegetable-based, the product was not to be pushed into the residuary entry where it could reasonably fit the specific one.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 853 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163999</link>
      <description>Potato chips were treated as falling within the specific VAT entry for processed or preserved vegetables and fruits rather than the residuary schedule for the period before 16 October 2008. The relevant entry was read in an enlarged, inclusive sense, supported by examples such as jam, pickle, squash, paste and juices, showing that it was not confined to ordinary common parlance. Because the legislature had not excluded potato chips until the later amendment, and contemporaneous administrative understanding treated them as vegetable-based, the product was not to be pushed into the residuary entry where it could reasonably fit the specific one.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>