<?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>1988 (2) TMI 433 -  RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155259</link>
    <description>Caustic soda and soda ash used in textile dyeing and printing were treated as &quot;raw material&quot; under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act because section 2(mm) focuses on whether the article is used as an ingredient in the finished goods. The Court rejected any stage-wise splitting of the purchase quantity and held that, once the statutory test is satisfied, the whole purchase qualifies even if the goods are also used in intermediary processes. On limitation, reopening of one matter after expiry of the eight-year period under section 12 was time-barred. The revision petitions therefore failed, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was not disturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:20:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 433 -  RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155259</link>
      <description>Caustic soda and soda ash used in textile dyeing and printing were treated as &quot;raw material&quot; under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act because section 2(mm) focuses on whether the article is used as an ingredient in the finished goods. The Court rejected any stage-wise splitting of the purchase quantity and held that, once the statutory test is satisfied, the whole purchase qualifies even if the goods are also used in intermediary processes. On limitation, reopening of one matter after expiry of the eight-year period under section 12 was time-barred. The revision petitions therefore failed, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was not disturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>