<?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>2024 (2) TMI 723 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449572</link>
    <description>Granite stone block and pieces were held to fall within Entry No. 109 of Schedule II Part A under Notification No. KA.NI-2-421/XI-9(1) dated 31.03.2011 and therefore attracted tax at 5%. The entry expressly included &quot;stone&quot; and excluded only glazed stone, marble and marble chips; that specific exclusion indicated that other forms of stone, including granite, remained covered unless expressly removed. The Tribunal&#039;s view that unprocessed stone fell within the entry was found consistent with the wording of the notification, and a broader exclusion of granite was rejected. The revenue challenge failed and the classification in favour of the dealer was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:30:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 723 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449572</link>
      <description>Granite stone block and pieces were held to fall within Entry No. 109 of Schedule II Part A under Notification No. KA.NI-2-421/XI-9(1) dated 31.03.2011 and therefore attracted tax at 5%. The entry expressly included &quot;stone&quot; and excluded only glazed stone, marble and marble chips; that specific exclusion indicated that other forms of stone, including granite, remained covered unless expressly removed. The Tribunal&#039;s view that unprocessed stone fell within the entry was found consistent with the wording of the notification, and a broader exclusion of granite was rejected. The revenue challenge failed and the classification in favour of the dealer was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>