<?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 (8) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=138042</link>
    <description>Cotton waste was treated as a distinct commodity from cotton in trade parlance and for sales tax purposes, so the single-point levy applicable to cotton could not be extended to waste arising after milling. The fact that cotton waste may still contain fibres or be capable of further use did not preserve its character as cotton once the material had undergone manufacture and emerged as waste. The statutory scheme&#039;s later recognition of the distinction between cotton and cotton waste reinforced that interpretation. The disputed turnover was therefore not liable to assessment on the footing that it remained cotton at the purchase point.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:34:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (8) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=138042</link>
      <description>Cotton waste was treated as a distinct commodity from cotton in trade parlance and for sales tax purposes, so the single-point levy applicable to cotton could not be extended to waste arising after milling. The fact that cotton waste may still contain fibres or be capable of further use did not preserve its character as cotton once the material had undergone manufacture and emerged as waste. The statutory scheme&#039;s later recognition of the distinction between cotton and cotton waste reinforced that interpretation. The disputed turnover was therefore not liable to assessment on the footing that it remained cotton at the purchase point.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=138042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>