<?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>1981 (1) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153093</link>
    <description>Rectifiers were treated as electrical goods for sales tax classification because the decisive test was their purpose and design, not merely whether they consumed electricity. As they converted alternating current into direct current for industrial and other electrical applications, they had a direct nexus with the utilisation of electricity and fell within entry 20 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Their specialised nature and absence from ordinary bazaar trade did not justify resort to the residuary entry. On common parlance and trade understanding, they were not residuary goods, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:07:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153093</link>
      <description>Rectifiers were treated as electrical goods for sales tax classification because the decisive test was their purpose and design, not merely whether they consumed electricity. As they converted alternating current into direct current for industrial and other electrical applications, they had a direct nexus with the utilisation of electricity and fell within entry 20 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Their specialised nature and absence from ordinary bazaar trade did not justify resort to the residuary entry. On common parlance and trade understanding, they were not residuary goods, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>