<?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>1960 (11) TMI 100 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128234</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption for agricultural produce must be read consistently with the constitutional prohibition on discriminatory taxation, so produce grown outside the State could not be denied the benefit merely because it was sold within the State. Rubber also remained agricultural produce where only ordinary preservation and marketing processes were applied, such as hardening latex, shaping sheets, and drying by smoke, because those steps did not change its essential character into manufactured goods. The commentary therefore states that both the territorial distinction and the processing argument failed, and the tax demand could not be sustained on either basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:07:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 100 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128234</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption for agricultural produce must be read consistently with the constitutional prohibition on discriminatory taxation, so produce grown outside the State could not be denied the benefit merely because it was sold within the State. Rubber also remained agricultural produce where only ordinary preservation and marketing processes were applied, such as hardening latex, shaping sheets, and drying by smoke, because those steps did not change its essential character into manufactured goods. The commentary therefore states that both the territorial distinction and the processing argument failed, and the tax demand could not be sustained on either basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>