<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1152 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181011</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications are construed strictly and cannot be extended by implication beyond the taxes expressly covered. The notification exempted only the operation of sections 5 and 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act and did not expressly exempt the charging provisions for commercial tax or entry tax, so it afforded no immunity from entry tax. Registered dealers purchasing goods from outside Madhya Pradesh and bringing them into a local area remained liable to entry tax under the charging provision, and the benefit of the notification could not be claimed. The writ petitions therefore failed, and the assessment and revisional orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:01:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1152 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181011</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications are construed strictly and cannot be extended by implication beyond the taxes expressly covered. The notification exempted only the operation of sections 5 and 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act and did not expressly exempt the charging provisions for commercial tax or entry tax, so it afforded no immunity from entry tax. Registered dealers purchasing goods from outside Madhya Pradesh and bringing them into a local area remained liable to entry tax under the charging provision, and the benefit of the notification could not be claimed. The writ petitions therefore failed, and the assessment and revisional orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>