<?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>1959 (9) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127964</link>
    <description>A registered tanner who bought untanned hides and skins, had them tanned in other tanneries, and then sold the finished goods for export was treated as a registered tanner for rule 16(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939. The location of the tanning work did not change that status, so the purchase turnover remained assessable under the rule. The argument that a continuous course of dealings had to be proved was not entertained because it was raised late and would have required fresh factual inquiry. The alternative reliance on rule 16(3) also failed, as it had not been urged before the Tribunal and there was no double taxation on the tanned goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:31:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (9) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127964</link>
      <description>A registered tanner who bought untanned hides and skins, had them tanned in other tanneries, and then sold the finished goods for export was treated as a registered tanner for rule 16(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939. The location of the tanning work did not change that status, so the purchase turnover remained assessable under the rule. The argument that a continuous course of dealings had to be proved was not entertained because it was raised late and would have required fresh factual inquiry. The alternative reliance on rule 16(3) also failed, as it had not been urged before the Tribunal and there was no double taxation on the tanned goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>