<?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 (7) TMI 35 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127527</link>
    <description>For sales tax purposes under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the reference was treated as valid because it was signed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the State&#039;s name at the top of the petition was regarded as surplusage. The process of mining, splitting, grading and sorting crude mica was treated as manufacture, because it brought into existence a commercially distinct and saleable commodity even though the raw material retained its basic identity. The amended definition and proviso to section 2(g) were read to support taxation where the commodity was produced in Bihar, so the assessee&#039;s challenge to assessment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:50:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (7) TMI 35 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127527</link>
      <description>For sales tax purposes under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the reference was treated as valid because it was signed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the State&#039;s name at the top of the petition was regarded as surplusage. The process of mining, splitting, grading and sorting crude mica was treated as manufacture, because it brought into existence a commercially distinct and saleable commodity even though the raw material retained its basic identity. The amended definition and proviso to section 2(g) were read to support taxation where the commodity was produced in Bihar, so the assessee&#039;s challenge to assessment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>