<?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>1965 (4) TMI 103 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144077</link>
    <description>A workshop where karigars worked under the dealer&#039;s direct supervision and control, with raw materials and implements supplied by the dealer, was treated as a manufactory for the validating exemption under the Orissa Sales Tax framework. The earlier broader meaning of &quot;manufacturer&quot; was not decisive after the validating enactment; the controlling issue was whether the dealer owned or ran a manufactory. Because exempt workshop work was mixed with other work in the accounts, the exempt and non-exempt turnover had to be separated and reassessed. The assessments were therefore quashed and the matter sent back for fresh computation limited to the taxable portion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:38:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 103 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144077</link>
      <description>A workshop where karigars worked under the dealer&#039;s direct supervision and control, with raw materials and implements supplied by the dealer, was treated as a manufactory for the validating exemption under the Orissa Sales Tax framework. The earlier broader meaning of &quot;manufacturer&quot; was not decisive after the validating enactment; the controlling issue was whether the dealer owned or ran a manufactory. Because exempt workshop work was mixed with other work in the accounts, the exempt and non-exempt turnover had to be separated and reassessed. The assessments were therefore quashed and the matter sent back for fresh computation limited to the taxable portion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>