<?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>1985 (7) TMI 335 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154480</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act was considered in the context of C-form purchases for manufacture or processing, where the goods were used in job-work for customers and the processed goods were returned. The controlling principle stated was that concessional treatment under section 8(1)(b) read with section 8(3)(b) applies to goods used in manufacture or processing of goods intended for sale, and penalty arises only where that condition is not met. On the facts described, the use of oil in processing marble stones belonging to others on job-work basis did not justify penalty, and section 10A was held not to be leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:20:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 335 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154480</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act was considered in the context of C-form purchases for manufacture or processing, where the goods were used in job-work for customers and the processed goods were returned. The controlling principle stated was that concessional treatment under section 8(1)(b) read with section 8(3)(b) applies to goods used in manufacture or processing of goods intended for sale, and penalty arises only where that condition is not met. On the facts described, the use of oil in processing marble stones belonging to others on job-work basis did not justify penalty, and section 10A was held not to be leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>