<?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>1957 (11) TMI 15 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127728</link>
    <description>Supply of gunny bags containing wheat atta to depot-holders was treated as a sale because property in the bags passed for consideration under the contractual arrangement, and the absence of profit motive did not alter that character. The price recovered for gunny bags used as packing material was also includible in taxable turnover because the bags were separately priced and transferred as identifiable goods. Ex parte rejection of a revision petition under section 21(3) was not an adverse order, since notice was required only where the authority proposed to make an order prejudicial to rights. The reference was answered for the revenue on the substantive tax issues, and the revisional challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:56:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (11) TMI 15 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127728</link>
      <description>Supply of gunny bags containing wheat atta to depot-holders was treated as a sale because property in the bags passed for consideration under the contractual arrangement, and the absence of profit motive did not alter that character. The price recovered for gunny bags used as packing material was also includible in taxable turnover because the bags were separately priced and transferred as identifiable goods. Ex parte rejection of a revision petition under section 21(3) was not an adverse order, since notice was required only where the authority proposed to make an order prejudicial to rights. The reference was answered for the revenue on the substantive tax issues, and the revisional challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>