<?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>1978 (4) TMI 220 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152198</link>
    <description>The meaning of &quot;ware&quot; in the relevant notification was confined to articles commonly understood as utensils, and only goods answering that ordinary sense could fall within the metal-or-alloy entry. G.I. pipes and C.I. pipes are not utensils in common parlance, so they were excluded from that classification and treated as unclassified items for tax purposes. The answer was therefore in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:38:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (4) TMI 220 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152198</link>
      <description>The meaning of &quot;ware&quot; in the relevant notification was confined to articles commonly understood as utensils, and only goods answering that ordinary sense could fall within the metal-or-alloy entry. G.I. pipes and C.I. pipes are not utensils in common parlance, so they were excluded from that classification and treated as unclassified items for tax purposes. The answer was therefore in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>