<?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>1980 (10) TMI 182 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152946</link>
    <description>Fish meal was treated in trade and common parlance as a quick-acting organic manure and a form of fertiliser, so its commercial identity was not changed by its use as poultry feed. Tax liability had to be determined by the popular meaning of the commodity, not by a single buyer&#039;s use. On that basis, fish meal fell within the sales tax exemption notification as manure or fertiliser other than chemical fertiliser, in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2013 13:06:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (10) TMI 182 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152946</link>
      <description>Fish meal was treated in trade and common parlance as a quick-acting organic manure and a form of fertiliser, so its commercial identity was not changed by its use as poultry feed. Tax liability had to be determined by the popular meaning of the commodity, not by a single buyer&#039;s use. On that basis, fish meal fell within the sales tax exemption notification as manure or fertiliser other than chemical fertiliser, in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>