<?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>1983 (9) TMI 269 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154381</link>
    <description>The Court held that the frog legs purchased and exported by the assessees were not considered different articles for tax exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the processing of the frog legs did not result in a commercially different product, and the goods retained their original character. As a result, the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessees was upheld, and the tax case was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 269 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154381</link>
      <description>The Court held that the frog legs purchased and exported by the assessees were not considered different articles for tax exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the processing of the frog legs did not result in a commercially different product, and the goods retained their original character. As a result, the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessees was upheld, and the tax case was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>