<?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>1984 (8) TMI 303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154437</link>
    <description>Second sale exemption for taxable goods depends on the character of the transaction as a second sale, not on whether the purchaser is an electrical dealer or on the purchaser&#039;s subsequent use of the goods. The Madras HC noted that aluminium electrical wires fell within the single-point scheme and that the revisional authority had denied exemption only because the buyer was a manufacturer using the goods for a different purpose. The court stated that where the goods sold are electrical goods and the sale is otherwise a second sale of goods already subjected to tax, exemption cannot be refused merely because the purchaser applies them differently. The revisional order denying the benefit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:21:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154437</link>
      <description>Second sale exemption for taxable goods depends on the character of the transaction as a second sale, not on whether the purchaser is an electrical dealer or on the purchaser&#039;s subsequent use of the goods. The Madras HC noted that aluminium electrical wires fell within the single-point scheme and that the revisional authority had denied exemption only because the buyer was a manufacturer using the goods for a different purpose. The court stated that where the goods sold are electrical goods and the sale is otherwise a second sale of goods already subjected to tax, exemption cannot be refused merely because the purchaser applies them differently. The revisional order denying the benefit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>