<?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 (3) TMI 141 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150043</link>
    <description>An unexplained cash credit in business accounts may be inferred as suppressed business receipts when no reasonable explanation is offered, and an estimated turnover enhancement based on that inference may be sustained. Ginning and pressing of raw cotton was treated as manufacture because the process converted unusable raw cotton into marketable cotton, making resale declarations invalid where the goods were in fact bought for manufacture. Sales that directly caused goods to move outside the State for delivery and consumption outside the State fell within the constitutional protection under Article 286(1), so no separate certificate of consumption was required. Transactions booked directly to out-of-State mills and delivered there were treated as outside-State sales, not taxable intra-State sales.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 11:26:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (3) TMI 141 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150043</link>
      <description>An unexplained cash credit in business accounts may be inferred as suppressed business receipts when no reasonable explanation is offered, and an estimated turnover enhancement based on that inference may be sustained. Ginning and pressing of raw cotton was treated as manufacture because the process converted unusable raw cotton into marketable cotton, making resale declarations invalid where the goods were in fact bought for manufacture. Sales that directly caused goods to move outside the State for delivery and consumption outside the State fell within the constitutional protection under Article 286(1), so no separate certificate of consumption was required. Transactions booked directly to out-of-State mills and delivered there were treated as outside-State sales, not taxable intra-State sales.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>