<?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 (10) TMI 268 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155849</link>
    <description>Section 8(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 grants concessional tax on raw materials used in manufacturing goods for sale in Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade, commerce, or export. The provision does not require every intermediate manufacturing stage to occur within Madhya Pradesh. The decisive condition is that the manufactured goods are intended for sale in the prescribed manner; an intermediate process carried out outside the State does not by itself defeat the concession. Where the final product was completed in Madhya Pradesh, the concession could not be denied on the ground that one manufacturing step occurred elsewhere.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:00:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 268 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155849</link>
      <description>Section 8(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 grants concessional tax on raw materials used in manufacturing goods for sale in Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade, commerce, or export. The provision does not require every intermediate manufacturing stage to occur within Madhya Pradesh. The decisive condition is that the manufactured goods are intended for sale in the prescribed manner; an intermediate process carried out outside the State does not by itself defeat the concession. Where the final product was completed in Madhya Pradesh, the concession could not be denied on the ground that one manufacturing step occurred elsewhere.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>