<?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>1969 (9) TMI 107 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150015</link>
    <description>A society controlling sales under a cotton pool scheme was treated as carrying on the business of selling cotton, because it supervised the scheme, acted through sub-agents, issued sale bills in its own name, received proceeds, and accounted for the transactions; it was therefore a dealer liable to tax. Oil-engines and centrifugal pumps were not agricultural machinery, since classification depends on how the goods are understood in commercial parlance and not on possible agricultural use. Sales of those goods to agriculturists for bona fide agricultural purposes did not attract the agricultural machinery exception to item 44, because the goods themselves were not shown to be agricultural machinery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 18:26:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (9) TMI 107 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150015</link>
      <description>A society controlling sales under a cotton pool scheme was treated as carrying on the business of selling cotton, because it supervised the scheme, acted through sub-agents, issued sale bills in its own name, received proceeds, and accounted for the transactions; it was therefore a dealer liable to tax. Oil-engines and centrifugal pumps were not agricultural machinery, since classification depends on how the goods are understood in commercial parlance and not on possible agricultural use. Sales of those goods to agriculturists for bona fide agricultural purposes did not attract the agricultural machinery exception to item 44, because the goods themselves were not shown to be agricultural machinery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150015</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>