<?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>1956 (4) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127509</link>
    <description>Arecanuts that were peeled, sliced, boiled and dried remained horticultural produce for the sales tax exclusion, because the processing was only the minimum necessary to make them marketable and did not amount to manufacture or alter their essential character. The proviso to section 2(1) was construed to protect agricultural or horticultural produce grown by the assessee, and a narrow reading would defeat that purpose. The court therefore treated the curing process as preservative and consistent with local agricultural practice, and the Government&#039;s challenge failed, leaving the assessee entitled to the statutory exclusion from taxable turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:41:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (4) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127509</link>
      <description>Arecanuts that were peeled, sliced, boiled and dried remained horticultural produce for the sales tax exclusion, because the processing was only the minimum necessary to make them marketable and did not amount to manufacture or alter their essential character. The proviso to section 2(1) was construed to protect agricultural or horticultural produce grown by the assessee, and a narrow reading would defeat that purpose. The court therefore treated the curing process as preservative and consistent with local agricultural practice, and the Government&#039;s challenge failed, leaving the assessee entitled to the statutory exclusion from taxable turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>