<?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>1986 (2) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41678</link>
    <description>In construing a tax exemption entry, &quot;cloth&quot; is to be understood in its popular sense as pliable woven, knitted or felted material; hard or non-pliable felt does not fall within that description. On the stated facts, only those varieties of compressed woollen felt that satisfied the pliability test could qualify for exemption, so blanket exemption was not available. The article also notes that equitable estoppel could not enlarge a tax exemption beyond the specific goods covered by an earlier representation. Separately, it states that a High Court should not summarily dismiss a writ petition without examining the merits of a Commissioner&#039;s order where that order fixes the tax position and the alternate remedy is not an effective answer in the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 23:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41678</link>
      <description>In construing a tax exemption entry, &quot;cloth&quot; is to be understood in its popular sense as pliable woven, knitted or felted material; hard or non-pliable felt does not fall within that description. On the stated facts, only those varieties of compressed woollen felt that satisfied the pliability test could qualify for exemption, so blanket exemption was not available. The article also notes that equitable estoppel could not enlarge a tax exemption beyond the specific goods covered by an earlier representation. Separately, it states that a High Court should not summarily dismiss a writ petition without examining the merits of a Commissioner&#039;s order where that order fixes the tax position and the alternate remedy is not an effective answer in the circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>