<?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>2004 (4) TMI 632 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273991</link>
    <description>Where a tariff notification grants free or concessional electricity to agricultural consumers and &quot;agriculture&quot; is undefined, the term must be read in its ordinary, natural and contextual sense. Applying that approach, the SC held that agriculture refers to traditional land-based cultivation and cannot be stretched to include fish farming merely because it is land-related. Pisciculture was treated as a distinct aquaculture activity, not agriculture, and definitions in other statutes were held irrelevant where they served different purposes and were not in pari materia. The appellants were therefore not entitled to the agricultural electricity tariff.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527967" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 632 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273991</link>
      <description>Where a tariff notification grants free or concessional electricity to agricultural consumers and &quot;agriculture&quot; is undefined, the term must be read in its ordinary, natural and contextual sense. Applying that approach, the SC held that agriculture refers to traditional land-based cultivation and cannot be stretched to include fish farming merely because it is land-related. Pisciculture was treated as a distinct aquaculture activity, not agriculture, and definitions in other statutes were held irrelevant where they served different purposes and were not in pari materia. The appellants were therefore not entitled to the agricultural electricity tariff.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>