<?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 (2) TMI 250 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154007</link>
    <description>Section 4-B concessional tax on raw material purchases was available where the notified goods manufactured from the certified purchases were sold in the manner required by the statute, and the concession could not be denied merely because the assessee also produced and sold additional goods from other sources. The court noted that the relevant inquiry under sub-sections (2) and (6) was whether the goods made from the recognised raw material complied with the statutory conditions; breach in respect of other goods did not justify denial of relief. A pro rata allocation of sales was held inappropriate on the facts, because the sale of oil exceeded what could have been produced from the oil-seeds bought against the recognition certificate. The concessional rate of 2% therefore remained applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:04:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (2) TMI 250 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154007</link>
      <description>Section 4-B concessional tax on raw material purchases was available where the notified goods manufactured from the certified purchases were sold in the manner required by the statute, and the concession could not be denied merely because the assessee also produced and sold additional goods from other sources. The court noted that the relevant inquiry under sub-sections (2) and (6) was whether the goods made from the recognised raw material complied with the statutory conditions; breach in respect of other goods did not justify denial of relief. A pro rata allocation of sales was held inappropriate on the facts, because the sale of oil exceeded what could have been produced from the oil-seeds bought against the recognition certificate. The concessional rate of 2% therefore remained applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>