<?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>1990 (8) TMI 371 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156497</link>
    <description>Carbon dioxide retained its identity as the same goods after removal of impurities and improvement in purity, so the processing did not create a new commercial commodity for sales tax purposes. The entry taxing gases did not establish a separate taxable class based on grades or degrees of purity, and substantial identity remained between the goods purchased and resold. Mere enhancement of quality or suitability for use was not enough to amount to manufacture of a different commodity. The burden to prove a change in commercial identity lay on the Revenue, and that burden was not discharged, so repeated levy under the single-point entry was not permissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:10:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 371 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156497</link>
      <description>Carbon dioxide retained its identity as the same goods after removal of impurities and improvement in purity, so the processing did not create a new commercial commodity for sales tax purposes. The entry taxing gases did not establish a separate taxable class based on grades or degrees of purity, and substantial identity remained between the goods purchased and resold. Mere enhancement of quality or suitability for use was not enough to amount to manufacture of a different commodity. The burden to prove a change in commercial identity lay on the Revenue, and that burden was not discharged, so repeated levy under the single-point entry was not permissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>