<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1339 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292245</link>
    <description>The court upheld the classification of &#039;Rusk&#039; as a taxable item under the residuary entry of Schedule IV of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It also ruled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 70 of the Act, thereby dismissing the petitioner&#039;s application for condonation of delay and the Revision Petition itself.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1339 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292245</link>
      <description>The court upheld the classification of &#039;Rusk&#039; as a taxable item under the residuary entry of Schedule IV of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It also ruled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 70 of the Act, thereby dismissing the petitioner&#039;s application for condonation of delay and the Revision Petition itself.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>