<?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>2022 (3) TMI 632 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419594</link>
    <description>A special tax statute&#039;s revision period may attract the Limitation Act, 1963 where the statute prescribes a filing limit but does not expressly exclude condonation; read with Section 29(2), Sections 3 to 24 can apply, and delay may be condoned on sufficient cause. On the stated facts, the mistaken approach to another forum was treated as bona fide, so the revisional delay was condoned. For VAT classification, rusk was treated as a commercially distinct commodity from bread because it undergoes further manufacture and value addition; the exemption available to bread therefore did not extend to rusk, and the exemption denial was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 632 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419594</link>
      <description>A special tax statute&#039;s revision period may attract the Limitation Act, 1963 where the statute prescribes a filing limit but does not expressly exclude condonation; read with Section 29(2), Sections 3 to 24 can apply, and delay may be condoned on sufficient cause. On the stated facts, the mistaken approach to another forum was treated as bona fide, so the revisional delay was condoned. For VAT classification, rusk was treated as a commercially distinct commodity from bread because it undergoes further manufacture and value addition; the exemption available to bread therefore did not extend to rusk, and the exemption denial was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>