<?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 (5) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148591</link>
    <description>Hand-made footwear exemption under the sales tax law applied only where every statutory condition was met, including that the goods were sold by the manufacturer or a qualifying family member at or below the prescribed price. A dealer who purchased the footwear from manufacturers and resold it could not claim the exemption, so the resale remained taxable. Sales tax separately collected from purchasers also formed part of the sale consideration under the definition of taxable turnover, because the statute did not exclude that component from the sale price. The reference was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:23:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (5) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148591</link>
      <description>Hand-made footwear exemption under the sales tax law applied only where every statutory condition was met, including that the goods were sold by the manufacturer or a qualifying family member at or below the prescribed price. A dealer who purchased the footwear from manufacturers and resold it could not claim the exemption, so the resale remained taxable. Sales tax separately collected from purchasers also formed part of the sale consideration under the definition of taxable turnover, because the statute did not exclude that component from the sale price. The reference was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>