<?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 (9) TMI 227 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154191</link>
    <description>Sales tax exemption for mini rice machines depended on whether the certificate issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission at Lucknow satisfied the exemption notification. The notification required sales by institutions in Uttar Pradesh certified by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, but it did not prescribe any particular form of certificate. The certificate recognising the assessee as a fabricator of the relevant village-industry goods was therefore treated as sufficient compliance. The Commission&#039;s statutory role in issuing certificates to producers or dealers of village-industry products also supported this reading. Exemption was accordingly available, and denial based solely on the certificate&#039;s issuance from Lucknow rather than Bombay was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:52:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (9) TMI 227 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154191</link>
      <description>Sales tax exemption for mini rice machines depended on whether the certificate issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission at Lucknow satisfied the exemption notification. The notification required sales by institutions in Uttar Pradesh certified by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, but it did not prescribe any particular form of certificate. The certificate recognising the assessee as a fabricator of the relevant village-industry goods was therefore treated as sufficient compliance. The Commission&#039;s statutory role in issuing certificates to producers or dealers of village-industry products also supported this reading. Exemption was accordingly available, and denial based solely on the certificate&#039;s issuance from Lucknow rather than Bombay was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>