<?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>1982 (7) TMI 256 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154002</link>
    <description>Tamarind sold after removal of seeds remained the same commodity because the processing did not alter its essential identity or form. The exemption applied where the goods were sold in the course of inter-State trade and had already suffered tax under the State Act; the mere removal of inedible portions did not create a commercially distinct article. The issue of separate identity was answered against the department, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:53:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (7) TMI 256 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154002</link>
      <description>Tamarind sold after removal of seeds remained the same commodity because the processing did not alter its essential identity or form. The exemption applied where the goods were sold in the course of inter-State trade and had already suffered tax under the State Act; the mere removal of inedible portions did not create a commercially distinct article. The issue of separate identity was answered against the department, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>