<?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>1979 (7) TMI 213 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152326</link>
    <description>An estimate of turnover under section 5A was upheld where the reassessment notice referred to such purchases, the assessee&#039;s records were examined, and acceptable material was lacking; the Tribunal should not have disturbed the estimate for want of evidence. On classification of rubber seals, the controlling test was whether the transaction showed an intention to transfer the goods as chattels, judged by the nature of the transaction and the parties&#039; intention. The Tribunal had not applied that test, and rubber seals were not treated as &quot;rubber products&quot; under item 5 of the First Schedule; the matter was remitted for fresh determination, with item 5 not applicable on the existing reasoning.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:56:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (7) TMI 213 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152326</link>
      <description>An estimate of turnover under section 5A was upheld where the reassessment notice referred to such purchases, the assessee&#039;s records were examined, and acceptable material was lacking; the Tribunal should not have disturbed the estimate for want of evidence. On classification of rubber seals, the controlling test was whether the transaction showed an intention to transfer the goods as chattels, judged by the nature of the transaction and the parties&#039; intention. The Tribunal had not applied that test, and rubber seals were not treated as &quot;rubber products&quot; under item 5 of the First Schedule; the matter was remitted for fresh determination, with item 5 not applicable on the existing reasoning.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>