<?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>2023 (10) TMI 158 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443935</link>
    <description>Bakery shortening was held to fall within the specific entry for vanaspati under the U.P. VAT Act because the evidence showed common raw material, similar manufacturing process, and comparable chemical and physical properties. Technical certificates, laboratory reports, and the relevant regulatory definition supported the view that bakery shortening is a form of hydrogenated vegetable oil used as a shortening or leavening agent. In classification disputes, the specific entry prevails over the residuary entry, and any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the assessee; the revenue therefore failed to justify treatment of the product as an unclassified commodity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2023 16:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 158 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443935</link>
      <description>Bakery shortening was held to fall within the specific entry for vanaspati under the U.P. VAT Act because the evidence showed common raw material, similar manufacturing process, and comparable chemical and physical properties. Technical certificates, laboratory reports, and the relevant regulatory definition supported the view that bakery shortening is a form of hydrogenated vegetable oil used as a shortening or leavening agent. In classification disputes, the specific entry prevails over the residuary entry, and any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the assessee; the revenue therefore failed to justify treatment of the product as an unclassified commodity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>