<?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>1992 (4) TMI 219 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156616</link>
    <description>Conversion of scrap iron into iron rods and angles was treated as manufacture because the statutory definition of manufacture in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was construed broadly to cover processes producing or making goods. On that basis, the scrap iron was regarded as used or consumed in manufacturing activity, attracting purchase tax. The Court also held that a conditional sales tax exemption did not negate the underlying taxability of the goods, and the transformed product was a distinct commercial commodity for sales tax purposes. Accordingly, the challenge to the levy, revisional orders and penalty failed, and the tax and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:56:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 219 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156616</link>
      <description>Conversion of scrap iron into iron rods and angles was treated as manufacture because the statutory definition of manufacture in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was construed broadly to cover processes producing or making goods. On that basis, the scrap iron was regarded as used or consumed in manufacturing activity, attracting purchase tax. The Court also held that a conditional sales tax exemption did not negate the underlying taxability of the goods, and the transformed product was a distinct commercial commodity for sales tax purposes. Accordingly, the challenge to the levy, revisional orders and penalty failed, and the tax and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>