<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1021 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164826</link>
    <description>A manufacturer and seller of ice-cream or ice-candy was held outside a sales tax exemption notification confined to halwais, hotel keepers, restaurants, refreshment rooms, other eating establishments, tea stalls, dhabas and tandoorwalas. The listed expressions were read ejusdem generis to cover outlets where food or eatables are served for immediate consumer consumption, so factory-based production and supply to other establishments did not qualify. The attempt to treat the assessee as an &quot;other eating establishment&quot; was also not entertained because the contention had not been raised before the lower authorities and could not be introduced for the first time in revision. The claimed benefit was therefore unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1021 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164826</link>
      <description>A manufacturer and seller of ice-cream or ice-candy was held outside a sales tax exemption notification confined to halwais, hotel keepers, restaurants, refreshment rooms, other eating establishments, tea stalls, dhabas and tandoorwalas. The listed expressions were read ejusdem generis to cover outlets where food or eatables are served for immediate consumer consumption, so factory-based production and supply to other establishments did not qualify. The attempt to treat the assessee as an &quot;other eating establishment&quot; was also not entertained because the contention had not been raised before the lower authorities and could not be introduced for the first time in revision. The claimed benefit was therefore unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>