<?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 (7) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156593</link>
    <description>Items such as door locks, flexible channels, shield glasses, side glasses, door laces, horns, hub caps, mirrors and speedometers were treated as automobile spare parts rather than mere accessories. The Court read the concessional notification for automobile spare parts by focusing on the practical role of the goods in the effective and convenient use of a motor vehicle, not only on whether they were indispensable for propulsion. Relying on earlier decisions, it accepted that articles need not be strictly necessary to make the vehicle run to fall within the reduced-rate notification, and the assessee was entitled to concessional tax treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:32:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156593</link>
      <description>Items such as door locks, flexible channels, shield glasses, side glasses, door laces, horns, hub caps, mirrors and speedometers were treated as automobile spare parts rather than mere accessories. The Court read the concessional notification for automobile spare parts by focusing on the practical role of the goods in the effective and convenient use of a motor vehicle, not only on whether they were indispensable for propulsion. Relying on earlier decisions, it accepted that articles need not be strictly necessary to make the vehicle run to fall within the reduced-rate notification, and the assessee was entitled to concessional tax treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>