<?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 (9) TMI 243 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152988</link>
    <description>French coffee, consisting of coffee mixed with chicory, was held not to fall within the sales tax entry for coffee because taxing entries are construed in common parlance and commercial usage, and a coffee-chicory mixture has a distinct commercial identity from pure coffee. It was therefore exigible to tax as a first sale within the State. On the remand issue, the Tribunal&#039;s direction for further evidence on whether the depot sales goods were identical to the raw coffee beans purchased within the State was upheld, as no sufficient ground was shown to interfere with that discretionary order, though its scope was limited to the surviving issues in the relevant assessments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:45:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (9) TMI 243 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152988</link>
      <description>French coffee, consisting of coffee mixed with chicory, was held not to fall within the sales tax entry for coffee because taxing entries are construed in common parlance and commercial usage, and a coffee-chicory mixture has a distinct commercial identity from pure coffee. It was therefore exigible to tax as a first sale within the State. On the remand issue, the Tribunal&#039;s direction for further evidence on whether the depot sales goods were identical to the raw coffee beans purchased within the State was upheld, as no sufficient ground was shown to interfere with that discretionary order, though its scope was limited to the surviving issues in the relevant assessments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>