<?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 (10) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128755</link>
    <description>Cane crushers and boiling pans used to convert sugarcane into gur were treated as part of a manufacturing process, not agricultural operations, under the U.P. Sales Tax exemption for agricultural implements. The Court reasoned that agriculture ends when the crop is harvested and brought home, so later processing of produce does not fall within agriculture merely because the materials came from land. It also held that authorities on exemption from attachment of implements of husbandry did not govern the sales tax notification. The articles were therefore not agricultural implements and did not qualify for exemption from U.P. sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:08:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (10) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128755</link>
      <description>Cane crushers and boiling pans used to convert sugarcane into gur were treated as part of a manufacturing process, not agricultural operations, under the U.P. Sales Tax exemption for agricultural implements. The Court reasoned that agriculture ends when the crop is harvested and brought home, so later processing of produce does not fall within agriculture merely because the materials came from land. It also held that authorities on exemption from attachment of implements of husbandry did not govern the sales tax notification. The articles were therefore not agricultural implements and did not qualify for exemption from U.P. sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>