<?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 (10) TMI 264 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154580</link>
    <description>Excavation of gypsum from the earth was held not to be a manufacturing process under section 2(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Court reasoned that manufacture requires a transformation into a new and different commercial commodity with a distinct name, character or use, and that mere digging out of gypsum did not produce such a change. &quot;Extracting&quot; was distinguished from &quot;excavating,&quot; and gypsum remained the same commodity after removal, even if sold in different sizes. The earlier view treating excavation as manufacture was rejected, and the concessional treatment under section 5C was therefore unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:38:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 264 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154580</link>
      <description>Excavation of gypsum from the earth was held not to be a manufacturing process under section 2(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Court reasoned that manufacture requires a transformation into a new and different commercial commodity with a distinct name, character or use, and that mere digging out of gypsum did not produce such a change. &quot;Extracting&quot; was distinguished from &quot;excavating,&quot; and gypsum remained the same commodity after removal, even if sold in different sizes. The earlier view treating excavation as manufacture was rejected, and the concessional treatment under section 5C was therefore unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>