<?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>2013 (3) TMI 789 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274209</link>
    <description>Bone meal was treated as falling in a distinct commercial class from the crude organic manures listed in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act&#039;s Third Schedule, even if it could grammatically be described as an organic manure. The classification was upheld because taxation legislation permits a wider legislative latitude, and exemption may be restricted to selected manures to advance a fiscal policy, provided there is intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object pursued. On that basis, the separate treatment of bone meal under the First Schedule was not arbitrary or hostile discrimination, and exemption under the Third Schedule was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2018 17:13:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 789 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274209</link>
      <description>Bone meal was treated as falling in a distinct commercial class from the crude organic manures listed in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act&#039;s Third Schedule, even if it could grammatically be described as an organic manure. The classification was upheld because taxation legislation permits a wider legislative latitude, and exemption may be restricted to selected manures to advance a fiscal policy, provided there is intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object pursued. On that basis, the separate treatment of bone meal under the First Schedule was not arbitrary or hostile discrimination, and exemption under the Third Schedule was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>