<?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>1976 (3) TMI 203 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151118</link>
    <description>Section 31 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 validly empowered the State Government to add or delete goods in Schedule C, because the Act itself fixed the basic tax policy and the delegation was confined to implementing details. The notification of 15 January 1968 including paddy and rice in Schedule C was therefore within statutory competence and effective. On the dealer issue, a person purchasing paddy and manufacturing rice in the course of business fell within the statutory definition of dealer, and the claimed exemption or deduction for such purchases was not available on the wording of the Act. Purchase tax was accordingly payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 15:48:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 203 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151118</link>
      <description>Section 31 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 validly empowered the State Government to add or delete goods in Schedule C, because the Act itself fixed the basic tax policy and the delegation was confined to implementing details. The notification of 15 January 1968 including paddy and rice in Schedule C was therefore within statutory competence and effective. On the dealer issue, a person purchasing paddy and manufacturing rice in the course of business fell within the statutory definition of dealer, and the claimed exemption or deduction for such purchases was not available on the wording of the Act. Purchase tax was accordingly payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>