<?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>1995 (5) TMI 281 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194679</link>
    <description>Electrical energy consumed in mine-head premises was chargeable under Item (1) of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949, because that item covered premises used for business, trade or commercial purposes and expressly included mines to which the Mines Act applied. Although the same premises also answered the description of a factory under Item (2), the statute was read as classifying duty by the applicable category of premises, and where one premises fell within both descriptions, the higher rate under Item (1) prevailed. Duty was therefore payable under Item (1), not Item (2), and the contrary view was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:27:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 281 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194679</link>
      <description>Electrical energy consumed in mine-head premises was chargeable under Item (1) of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949, because that item covered premises used for business, trade or commercial purposes and expressly included mines to which the Mines Act applied. Although the same premises also answered the description of a factory under Item (2), the statute was read as classifying duty by the applicable category of premises, and where one premises fell within both descriptions, the higher rate under Item (1) prevailed. Duty was therefore payable under Item (1), not Item (2), and the contrary view was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>