<?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>1977 (4) TMI 152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151240</link>
    <description>Expanded sales-tax definitions can reach transactions incidental or ancillary to a dealer&#039;s business, so sales of miscellaneous empties and discarded materials were held taxable. An exemption notification for agricultural implements was construed to cover parts of such implements as well, because the term &quot;implements&quot; was not confined to complete goods and the context supported inclusion of castings used in a mould board plough; those sales were therefore exempt. A revision notice was not invalid merely because it did not expressly cite the revisional provision, since the authority&#039;s power to revise existed and the notice otherwise disclosed the intention to reopen the assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:59:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (4) TMI 152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151240</link>
      <description>Expanded sales-tax definitions can reach transactions incidental or ancillary to a dealer&#039;s business, so sales of miscellaneous empties and discarded materials were held taxable. An exemption notification for agricultural implements was construed to cover parts of such implements as well, because the term &quot;implements&quot; was not confined to complete goods and the context supported inclusion of castings used in a mould board plough; those sales were therefore exempt. A revision notice was not invalid merely because it did not expressly cite the revisional provision, since the authority&#039;s power to revise existed and the notice otherwise disclosed the intention to reopen the assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>