Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tax Tribunal: Distinction Upheld Between Dyed Cotton Yarn and Sewing Thread - Exemption Denied</h1> <h3>State of Tamil Nadu Versus Popular Thread Factory</h3> State of Tamil Nadu Versus Popular Thread Factory - [2000] 118 STC 59 (TNTST) Issues Involved:1. Exemption claim on the turnover of second sales of cotton sewing thread.2. Determination of whether dyed and spooled cotton yarn constitutes a new commercial product distinct from cotton yarn.3. Applicability of single point tax on cotton sewing thread under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.4. Interpretation of legislative entries related to cotton yarn and cotton sewing thread.Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption Claim on the Turnover of Second Sales of Cotton Sewing Thread:The respondent claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 21,14,641.98, arguing that the goods sold were second sales of cotton sewing thread. The assessing authority disallowed this claim, asserting that the goods sold were commercially different from cotton yarn, subjecting them to a 3% single point tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view, stating that the respondent converted cotton yarn into sewing thread, a commercially different product, and sold it under a registered brand name.2. Determination of Whether Dyed and Spooled Cotton Yarn Constitutes a New Commercial Product:The Appellate Tribunal initially found that the dyed and spooled yarn did not constitute a new product but remained dyed yarn sold in small spools. However, the Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the identity of cotton yarn is lost when it is converted into sewing thread. The Tribunal referred to several decisions, including Madura Mills Company Limited v. Government of Madras [1970] 25 STC 407, which held that dyed yarn remains cotton yarn. The Tribunal concluded that the commodity sold retained its original identity as cotton yarn and was eligible for exemption as second sales.3. Applicability of Single Point Tax on Cotton Sewing Thread:The Revenue contended that the State Legislature specifically brought cotton sewing thread under the First Schedule to the Act, effective from July 25, 1977. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was challenged for not considering this legislative change. The Tribunal's reliance on previous judgments was deemed insufficient as they did not address the specific legislative entry for cotton sewing thread. The Tribunal's decision was ultimately found erroneous in law, and the levy of single point tax on cotton sewing thread was upheld.4. Interpretation of Legislative Entries Related to Cotton Yarn and Cotton Sewing Thread:The judgment reviewed various decisions to determine whether cotton sewing thread and cotton yarn are the same commodity. The Tribunal initially relied on decisions that treated dyed yarn as cotton yarn. However, the judgment highlighted that the Legislature classified cotton sewing thread as a separate item in entry 141 of the First Schedule to the Act, distinguishing it from cotton yarn in entry 3 of the Second Schedule. The Supreme Court's decision in Vasantham Foundry v. Union of India [1995] 99 STC 87 (SC) supported the view that processed dyed cotton yarn marketed as cotton sewing thread is a distinct product and not declared goods. Consequently, the levy of single point tax on cotton sewing thread was deemed appropriate, and the orders of the Appellate Tribunal were set aside.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the processed dyed cotton yarn sold as cotton sewing thread is a commercially different product from cotton yarn. The legislative entry for cotton sewing thread justified the levy of single point tax, and the respondent's claim for exemption as second sales of cotton yarn was disallowed. The orders of the Appellate Tribunal were set aside, and the assessing authority's decision was restored. The tax revision cases were allowed, and the Tribunal's order was to be observed and executed by all concerned.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found