<?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>1951 (12) TMI 8 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127182</link>
    <description>A later list prepared by the Sales Tax Officer in July 1947 could not retrospectively govern the 1946-47 assessment, and it served only as an aid to construing the registration certificate. Ropeways and their parts were held not to fall within the expression &quot;colliery stores directly used in the raising of coal,&quot; because the exemption required direct and specified use, not merely essential or remote usefulness; the claimed deduction was therefore disallowed. A late claim for labour charges under Rule 4, unsupported by adequate material before the sales tax authorities, did not have to be entertained in revision, and the Board&#039;s refusal to examine it was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:51:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (12) TMI 8 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127182</link>
      <description>A later list prepared by the Sales Tax Officer in July 1947 could not retrospectively govern the 1946-47 assessment, and it served only as an aid to construing the registration certificate. Ropeways and their parts were held not to fall within the expression &quot;colliery stores directly used in the raising of coal,&quot; because the exemption required direct and specified use, not merely essential or remote usefulness; the claimed deduction was therefore disallowed. A late claim for labour charges under Rule 4, unsupported by adequate material before the sales tax authorities, did not have to be entertained in revision, and the Board&#039;s refusal to examine it was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>