<?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>1962 (12) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128620</link>
    <description>London sales were treated as part of the assessee&#039;s turnover in Uttar Pradesh for fixing gross turnover and tax liability, following the reasoning adopted in the connected reference. The assessee&#039;s bristle operations of cleaning, washing, sorting, bundling and trimming were not regarded as manufacture because they did not create a commercially different article or give the goods a new form, property or quality. The definition of manufacturing process in the Factories Act was held to be unhelpful for construing the sales tax provision. Accordingly, the London sales were includible in turnover, but Explanation II(ii) to section 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not apply to the bristle processing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:50:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (12) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128620</link>
      <description>London sales were treated as part of the assessee&#039;s turnover in Uttar Pradesh for fixing gross turnover and tax liability, following the reasoning adopted in the connected reference. The assessee&#039;s bristle operations of cleaning, washing, sorting, bundling and trimming were not regarded as manufacture because they did not create a commercially different article or give the goods a new form, property or quality. The definition of manufacturing process in the Factories Act was held to be unhelpful for construing the sales tax provision. Accordingly, the London sales were includible in turnover, but Explanation II(ii) to section 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not apply to the bristle processing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>