<?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>1977 (4) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57900</link>
    <description>Spare parts of pumping sets used with oil engines in agricultural pumping sets were treated as falling within Schedule C entry 12 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, because the amended exclusion for tractors, oil engines and electric motors did not expressly extend to their parts. The court reasoned that where the legislature intends to exclude parts or accessories, it does so expressly, and an exclusion of the principal article does not by implication cover its parts unless that intention is clear by necessary intendment. As the entry was reasonably capable of two interpretations, ambiguity in the taxing provision was resolved in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (4) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57900</link>
      <description>Spare parts of pumping sets used with oil engines in agricultural pumping sets were treated as falling within Schedule C entry 12 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, because the amended exclusion for tractors, oil engines and electric motors did not expressly extend to their parts. The court reasoned that where the legislature intends to exclude parts or accessories, it does so expressly, and an exclusion of the principal article does not by implication cover its parts unless that intention is clear by necessary intendment. As the entry was reasonably capable of two interpretations, ambiguity in the taxing provision was resolved in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>