<?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 (8) TMI 1102 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164647</link>
    <description>Coconut oil was treated as excluded from the concessional entry for edible or vegetable oil under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, because the amended Schedule B expressly described edible oil as &quot;other than coconut oil.&quot; The court accepted that coconut oil was not generally understood as cooking oil in the local market and could not be brought back into the concessional category through broader references to vegetable oil or vanaspati. A 31 May 2007 notification excluding coconut oil from &quot;vegetable oil&quot; was regarded as clarificatory and consistent with the statutory scheme, so the higher tax rate continued to apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1102 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164647</link>
      <description>Coconut oil was treated as excluded from the concessional entry for edible or vegetable oil under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, because the amended Schedule B expressly described edible oil as &quot;other than coconut oil.&quot; The court accepted that coconut oil was not generally understood as cooking oil in the local market and could not be brought back into the concessional category through broader references to vegetable oil or vanaspati. A 31 May 2007 notification excluding coconut oil from &quot;vegetable oil&quot; was regarded as clarificatory and consistent with the statutory scheme, so the higher tax rate continued to apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>