<?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>1960 (9) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99159</link>
    <description>Entry 80 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act was treated as a valid specification of goods because a general class description can still identify taxable goods with sufficient certainty, so purchase tax under section 10(1) applied to purchases of bidi tobacco not covered by earlier entries. Delivery of raw tobacco in Bombay for conversion into bidi patti was also held to be delivery for consumption in Bombay, because &quot;consumption&quot; under the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) extends to processing that produces a commercially different article. The purchases were therefore regarded as taking place inside the State, and no constitutional or statutory bar defeated the levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (9) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99159</link>
      <description>Entry 80 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act was treated as a valid specification of goods because a general class description can still identify taxable goods with sufficient certainty, so purchase tax under section 10(1) applied to purchases of bidi tobacco not covered by earlier entries. Delivery of raw tobacco in Bombay for conversion into bidi patti was also held to be delivery for consumption in Bombay, because &quot;consumption&quot; under the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) extends to processing that produces a commercially different article. The purchases were therefore regarded as taking place inside the State, and no constitutional or statutory bar defeated the levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>