TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether collar lining cut and affixed from cotton cloth remained cotton fabric entitled to exemption from tax, and whether reassessment proceedings under section 21 could be initiated on a subsequent change of opinion.
Analysis: The petitioners had earlier been assessed on the footing that the article sold was only cotton fabric and was exempt under the relevant notification. The later notice under section 21 was founded on the view that the same turnover had escaped assessment because the article was said to be a collar or a distinct commercial commodity. On the undisputed facts, the article sold was only collar lining made from cotton cloth cut into shape and joined by pressing or adhesive, and it did not become a new commercial commodity merely because it was prepared for use in making collars. Applying the principle that a product does not lose its identity as the original material merely because it is cut, stitched or joined, the article continued to fall within cotton fabrics of all varieties under the exemption notification. Since the turnover had already been considered and exempted, reassessment could not be justified merely because the assessing authority later changed its view.
Conclusion: The article was held to be cotton fabric entitled to exemption, and the notice under section 21 and the proceedings based on it were without authority of law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
