<?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>1961 (11) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165808</link>
    <description>Tax exemption notifications are construed by ordinary common-parlance meaning: sugar-cane was treated as a grass cultivated for sugar, not as &quot;green vegetables,&quot; so it did not qualify for exemption. The commentary also notes that the statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot; was broad enough to include a producer and seller of goods, bringing the sugar-cane seller within tax liability. It further states that the 1950 amendment to the dealer definition was not confined to a single financial year, because the preamble could not limit the plain text of the amendment, and no presidential assent issue arose where the matter fell within the State&#039;s taxing power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=362167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (11) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165808</link>
      <description>Tax exemption notifications are construed by ordinary common-parlance meaning: sugar-cane was treated as a grass cultivated for sugar, not as &quot;green vegetables,&quot; so it did not qualify for exemption. The commentary also notes that the statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot; was broad enough to include a producer and seller of goods, bringing the sugar-cane seller within tax liability. It further states that the 1950 amendment to the dealer definition was not confined to a single financial year, because the preamble could not limit the plain text of the amendment, and no presidential assent issue arose where the matter fell within the State&#039;s taxing power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>