<?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 (3) TMI 935 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164026</link>
    <description>Branded potato chips are analysed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 by applying the plain meaning of the competing schedule entries, the common parlance test and strict construction of taxing provisions. Entry 51 covers savouries like chips only when sold without a brand name, while Entry 107 on processed fruit and vegetables does not extend to branded potato chips made by frying, seasoning and packing potato slices. Because branded chips do not fit the specific entries, they fall within the residuary Part C. The text also notes that the Commissioner&#039;s clarification was treated as an administrative classification decision, with no requirement of prior hearing and no illegality found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 935 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164026</link>
      <description>Branded potato chips are analysed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 by applying the plain meaning of the competing schedule entries, the common parlance test and strict construction of taxing provisions. Entry 51 covers savouries like chips only when sold without a brand name, while Entry 107 on processed fruit and vegetables does not extend to branded potato chips made by frying, seasoning and packing potato slices. Because branded chips do not fit the specific entries, they fall within the residuary Part C. The text also notes that the Commissioner&#039;s clarification was treated as an administrative classification decision, with no requirement of prior hearing and no illegality found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>