<?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>1967 (11) TMI 101 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148256</link>
    <description>Purchase tax under section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is attracted to the first purchase of the commodity, and liability does not depend on prior payment of tax in an earlier transaction. The article also states that whether arhar, after processing, becomes a new commercial commodity must be determined by applying the correct legal test on proper evidence, rather than by assuming that processed and unprocessed forms are necessarily different goods. On that basis, the assessment orders described in the text were treated as based on an erroneous understanding of the charging provision and were quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:33:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (11) TMI 101 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148256</link>
      <description>Purchase tax under section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is attracted to the first purchase of the commodity, and liability does not depend on prior payment of tax in an earlier transaction. The article also states that whether arhar, after processing, becomes a new commercial commodity must be determined by applying the correct legal test on proper evidence, rather than by assuming that processed and unprocessed forms are necessarily different goods. On that basis, the assessment orders described in the text were treated as based on an erroneous understanding of the charging provision and were quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>