<?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>Court affirms no distinction between edible and inedible starch in Entry 118 due to legislative silence.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=22093</link>
    <description>Classification - If it had been the intention of the Legislature to distinguish between edible and inedible Starch, the Entry 118 itself would have explicitly said so and therefore when the Legislature itself is silent a meaning or interpretation to a word used in the statute must not be given which the Legislature itself did not intend and did not say in so many words - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:48:55 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:48:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court affirms no distinction between edible and inedible starch in Entry 118 due to legislative silence.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=22093</link>
      <description>Classification - If it had been the intention of the Legislature to distinguish between edible and inedible Starch, the Entry 118 itself would have explicitly said so and therefore when the Legislature itself is silent a meaning or interpretation to a word used in the statute must not be given which the Legislature itself did not intend and did not say in so many words - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:48:55 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=22093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>