<?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>1970 (2) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149762</link>
    <description>Goods were required to be classified by their ordinary commercial identity: carbon-paper was not &quot;paper&quot; in the common trade sense because its essential character lay in the chemical coating, so the levy at six per cent. failed; typewriter ribbons were accessories, not parts of typewriters, because a typewriter remains complete without them, so assessment at ten per cent. was invalid. The challenge to section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the notifications issued under it was rejected as the provision had already been upheld. Relief under article 226 was not barred by the availability of an alternative appeal where the assessment showed patent illegality and affected a large class of persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 12:22:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (2) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149762</link>
      <description>Goods were required to be classified by their ordinary commercial identity: carbon-paper was not &quot;paper&quot; in the common trade sense because its essential character lay in the chemical coating, so the levy at six per cent. failed; typewriter ribbons were accessories, not parts of typewriters, because a typewriter remains complete without them, so assessment at ten per cent. was invalid. The challenge to section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the notifications issued under it was rejected as the provision had already been upheld. Relief under article 226 was not barred by the availability of an alternative appeal where the assessment showed patent illegality and affected a large class of persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>