<?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>1958 (6) TMI 4 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127845</link>
    <description>Rule 35 rectification is confined to mistakes apparent from the existing record and cannot support reassessment on fresh material or resolution of debatable issues. Readymade garments produced by cutting and stitching mill cloth constitute a distinct commercial commodity and do not qualify as textiles manufactured by mills for a restricted single-point levy; labour charges are not deductible without a qualifying works-contract arrangement. Article 286(1) prohibits State taxation of sales occurring outside the State, and a presidential continuance order operating under Article 286(2) cannot validate such a levy. The assessment revision was therefore unauthorised, while the classification and labour-deduction claims failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:34:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (6) TMI 4 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127845</link>
      <description>Rule 35 rectification is confined to mistakes apparent from the existing record and cannot support reassessment on fresh material or resolution of debatable issues. Readymade garments produced by cutting and stitching mill cloth constitute a distinct commercial commodity and do not qualify as textiles manufactured by mills for a restricted single-point levy; labour charges are not deductible without a qualifying works-contract arrangement. Article 286(1) prohibits State taxation of sales occurring outside the State, and a presidential continuance order operating under Article 286(2) cannot validate such a levy. The assessment revision was therefore unauthorised, while the classification and labour-deduction claims failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>