<?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>1964 (3) TMI 75 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128864</link>
    <description>A cottage basin used in the silk industry for spinning and reeling silk was treated as &quot;machinery&quot; within item 20 of Schedule 2 to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. Because the Act did not define &quot;machinery,&quot; the term was given its ordinary meaning and read to include a mechanical contrivance made up of interdependent parts working together to achieve a specific result. The apparatus, consisting of a hand-operated wheel, gear-wheels and reels, regulated the winding of silk thread, improved efficiency and reduced knotting and labour. Manual operation did not prevent it from being machinery, and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was held to be incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (3) TMI 75 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128864</link>
      <description>A cottage basin used in the silk industry for spinning and reeling silk was treated as &quot;machinery&quot; within item 20 of Schedule 2 to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. Because the Act did not define &quot;machinery,&quot; the term was given its ordinary meaning and read to include a mechanical contrivance made up of interdependent parts working together to achieve a specific result. The apparatus, consisting of a hand-operated wheel, gear-wheels and reels, regulated the winding of silk thread, improved efficiency and reduced knotting and labour. Manual operation did not prevent it from being machinery, and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was held to be incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>