<?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 (5) TMI 1047 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183415</link>
    <description>Ice-cream was treated as an exempt milk product because it is made essentially from milk and cream, and classification was applied according to ordinary trade and consumer understanding rather than a narrow technical reading. The exemption entry covering fresh milk, dahi, khoa and cream was read to extend to a product derived predominantly from exempt goods, absent any clear legislative intention to tax it. The text also notes that each assessment year is separate, so the Tribunal could not extend its rate determination beyond the years in dispute. The assessee&#039;s claim for exemption was therefore upheld and the contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2016 17:29:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 1047 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183415</link>
      <description>Ice-cream was treated as an exempt milk product because it is made essentially from milk and cream, and classification was applied according to ordinary trade and consumer understanding rather than a narrow technical reading. The exemption entry covering fresh milk, dahi, khoa and cream was read to extend to a product derived predominantly from exempt goods, absent any clear legislative intention to tax it. The text also notes that each assessment year is separate, so the Tribunal could not extend its rate determination beyond the years in dispute. The assessee&#039;s claim for exemption was therefore upheld and the contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>