<?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 (11) TMI 173 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153899</link>
    <description>Incidental processing that does not alter the commercial identity of goods does not break the link between purchase and export under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Pepper purchased for export and subjected to garbling, cleaning, grading and packing remained pepper in commerce, so the processing did not create a different commodity. The purchase was therefore treated as occasioning the export, and the assessee&#039;s claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:51:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (11) TMI 173 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153899</link>
      <description>Incidental processing that does not alter the commercial identity of goods does not break the link between purchase and export under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Pepper purchased for export and subjected to garbling, cleaning, grading and packing remained pepper in commerce, so the processing did not create a different commodity. The purchase was therefore treated as occasioning the export, and the assessee&#039;s claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>