<?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 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151294</link>
    <description>PVC coated paper was treated as falling within the wide scope of entry 117 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because the entry covered &quot;paper, all sorts&quot; and all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified. The express exclusion of cinematographic and photographic paper showed that other paper varieties were intended to be included unless specifically excluded. As PVC coated paper remained essentially paper with a coating and was used for book-binding and similar purposes, it could not be taken outside the entry merely because it had undergone coating. Its turnover was therefore liable to single point tax under section 3(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:07:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (3) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151294</link>
      <description>PVC coated paper was treated as falling within the wide scope of entry 117 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because the entry covered &quot;paper, all sorts&quot; and all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified. The express exclusion of cinematographic and photographic paper showed that other paper varieties were intended to be included unless specifically excluded. As PVC coated paper remained essentially paper with a coating and was used for book-binding and similar purposes, it could not be taken outside the entry merely because it had undergone coating. Its turnover was therefore liable to single point tax under section 3(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>