<?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>2011 (7) TMI 1062 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166411</link>
    <description>Coconut oil manufactured and marketed as food-grade edible coconut oil was held to fall within the expression &quot;edible oil&quot; in Entry 24(i) of Part A of the 2nd Schedule to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and not within the residuary schedule for hair oil. The classification turned on common and commercial parlance, and the entry was not confined to oils from any particular source. The possibility that coconut oil may also be used as hair oil did not displace its edible character where the product was sold as an edible product. As two views were reasonably possible, the interpretation favourable to the taxpayer was preferred, and the reclassification based on assumption was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1062 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166411</link>
      <description>Coconut oil manufactured and marketed as food-grade edible coconut oil was held to fall within the expression &quot;edible oil&quot; in Entry 24(i) of Part A of the 2nd Schedule to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and not within the residuary schedule for hair oil. The classification turned on common and commercial parlance, and the entry was not confined to oils from any particular source. The possibility that coconut oil may also be used as hair oil did not displace its edible character where the product was sold as an edible product. As two views were reasonably possible, the interpretation favourable to the taxpayer was preferred, and the reclassification based on assumption was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>