<?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>2016 (10) TMI 561 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333541</link>
    <description>The State&#039;s power to levy VAT on pan masala containing tobacco was held not to be displaced by the constitutional revenue-distribution scheme or the Presidential order, and Article 14 was not violated by excluding that product from the exemption entry. The Court further held that the notification&#039;s explanation was clarificatory, because it aligned the exemption language with the existing legal position that tobacco in the relevant entry did not include pan masala containing tobacco. The challenge to legislative competence and to the validity of the clarification failed, and the writ petitions were rejected on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 561 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333541</link>
      <description>The State&#039;s power to levy VAT on pan masala containing tobacco was held not to be displaced by the constitutional revenue-distribution scheme or the Presidential order, and Article 14 was not violated by excluding that product from the exemption entry. The Court further held that the notification&#039;s explanation was clarificatory, because it aligned the exemption language with the existing legal position that tobacco in the relevant entry did not include pan masala containing tobacco. The challenge to legislative competence and to the validity of the clarification failed, and the writ petitions were rejected on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>