<?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 140 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151335</link>
    <description>The phrase &quot;for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale&quot; in section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was construed according to its plain language. Goods purchased on Form C and used to process cotton fabrics belonging to others were still treated as used for the declared statutory purpose, because the provision did not require the processed goods to belong to the purchasing dealer or to be sold only by him. On that construction, there was no failure to use the goods for the declared purpose. Even otherwise, the existence of conflicting High Court views supplied reasonable excuse, so penalty under section 10(d) read with section 10A was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:44:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (3) TMI 140 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151335</link>
      <description>The phrase &quot;for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale&quot; in section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was construed according to its plain language. Goods purchased on Form C and used to process cotton fabrics belonging to others were still treated as used for the declared statutory purpose, because the provision did not require the processed goods to belong to the purchasing dealer or to be sold only by him. On that construction, there was no failure to use the goods for the declared purpose. Even otherwise, the existence of conflicting High Court views supplied reasonable excuse, so penalty under section 10(d) read with section 10A was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>