<?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>1972 (3) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150267</link>
    <description>The court held that &quot;sizing, bleaching and dyeing of raw cloth&quot; amounts to &quot;textile manufacturing&quot; as it brings into existence a new marketable substance. Materials purchased for job-work of sizing, bleaching, etc., for other dealers qualify as goods purchased &quot;for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale.&quot; The court ruled in favor of the appellant, interpreting the relevant clause narrowly. The appeal and writ petition were allowed, quashing the impugned notice. The assessing authority may issue a fresh notice to verify compliance. Each party was to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 May 2013 09:48:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (3) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150267</link>
      <description>The court held that &quot;sizing, bleaching and dyeing of raw cloth&quot; amounts to &quot;textile manufacturing&quot; as it brings into existence a new marketable substance. Materials purchased for job-work of sizing, bleaching, etc., for other dealers qualify as goods purchased &quot;for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale.&quot; The court ruled in favor of the appellant, interpreting the relevant clause narrowly. The appeal and writ petition were allowed, quashing the impugned notice. The assessing authority may issue a fresh notice to verify compliance. Each party was to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>