<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1802 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192465</link>
    <description>A clear and unambiguous tax exemption notification must be interpreted according to its plain words, without adding limitations or reading in an assumed purpose. The SC held that, in taxing matters, equitable considerations are irrelevant and courts cannot supply omissions or restrict express language by reference to supposed legislative intention. Applying that rule to the notification covering sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by roller flour mills within the State, the Court found the revisional authority and the High Court had wrongly denied the exemption on a restrictive construction. The assessee was therefore entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the first appellate relief was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 10:49:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1802 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192465</link>
      <description>A clear and unambiguous tax exemption notification must be interpreted according to its plain words, without adding limitations or reading in an assumed purpose. The SC held that, in taxing matters, equitable considerations are irrelevant and courts cannot supply omissions or restrict express language by reference to supposed legislative intention. Applying that rule to the notification covering sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by roller flour mills within the State, the Court found the revisional authority and the High Court had wrongly denied the exemption on a restrictive construction. The assessee was therefore entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the first appellate relief was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>