<?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 109 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149806</link>
    <description>Steel doors were treated as not falling within the commercial category of hardware for sales tax purposes. Applying commercial parlance, the analysis distinguished hardware from iron and steel products and concluded that steel doors could be regarded as building material and, in any event, as an unclassified commodity. The operative effect was a lower tax treatment: steel doors were taxable at 2 per cent rather than at 3 per cent applicable to hardware.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 18:01:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (2) TMI 109 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149806</link>
      <description>Steel doors were treated as not falling within the commercial category of hardware for sales tax purposes. Applying commercial parlance, the analysis distinguished hardware from iron and steel products and concluded that steel doors could be regarded as building material and, in any event, as an unclassified commodity. The operative effect was a lower tax treatment: steel doors were taxable at 2 per cent rather than at 3 per cent applicable to hardware.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>