<?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 (8) TMI 203 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153228</link>
    <description>Apple juice was treated as a &quot;beverage&quot; within the ordinary wide meaning of that term, and the later notification under section 3-A(2-A) was applied as governing the specified goods at the point of sale to the consumer; the earlier multiple-point notification was regarded as superseded for that item, so taxation at the manufacturing stage was excluded. The account books were found unreliable because the cash book was not produced, but the excess turnover still required limited factual scrutiny to see whether sales to customers were proved. Tax on the apple juice sale was denied, while the rejection of accounts was upheld and the excess turnover issue remanded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:11:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 203 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153228</link>
      <description>Apple juice was treated as a &quot;beverage&quot; within the ordinary wide meaning of that term, and the later notification under section 3-A(2-A) was applied as governing the specified goods at the point of sale to the consumer; the earlier multiple-point notification was regarded as superseded for that item, so taxation at the manufacturing stage was excluded. The account books were found unreliable because the cash book was not produced, but the excess turnover still required limited factual scrutiny to see whether sales to customers were proved. Tax on the apple juice sale was denied, while the rejection of accounts was upheld and the excess turnover issue remanded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>