<?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>1966 (10) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100227</link>
    <description>Sales tax on turnover from chewing tobacco was governed by the Court&#039;s earlier ruling on the same turnover question, so the State&#039;s appeals were allowed consistently with that decision. The respondents did not press deduction of excise duty paid on raw tobacco, and the inclusion of packing material value did not arise in these appeals. The assessments therefore remained in favour of the State, and the respondents obtained no relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:30:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (10) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100227</link>
      <description>Sales tax on turnover from chewing tobacco was governed by the Court&#039;s earlier ruling on the same turnover question, so the State&#039;s appeals were allowed consistently with that decision. The respondents did not press deduction of excise duty paid on raw tobacco, and the inclusion of packing material value did not arise in these appeals. The assessments therefore remained in favour of the State, and the respondents obtained no relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>