<?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 (3) TMI 133 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151285</link>
    <description>Dry-cells used in hearing-aids were treated as accessories of hearing-aids because the devices could not be used without them. On that basis, the goods fell within the exemption for electrical hearing-aids and accessories under G.O. Ms. No. 976, Revenue, dated 28 March 1959, rather than being classified as separate electrical goods. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the sales were covered by the exemption was upheld, and the challenge by the assessee failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:00:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (3) TMI 133 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151285</link>
      <description>Dry-cells used in hearing-aids were treated as accessories of hearing-aids because the devices could not be used without them. On that basis, the goods fell within the exemption for electrical hearing-aids and accessories under G.O. Ms. No. 976, Revenue, dated 28 March 1959, rather than being classified as separate electrical goods. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the sales were covered by the exemption was upheld, and the challenge by the assessee failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>