<?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>1991 (7) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156755</link>
    <description>Tables, stools, trays, racks and similar articles sold to a match factory were treated as furniture under entry 121 of the First Schedule because the term &quot;furniture&quot; was construed in common parlance to include furniture used in homes, offices, factories and other places. Special design for factory use did not alter their character, and mere use in a factory did not make them factory equipment unless the statute expressly excluded them. The articles therefore fell within entry 121 and were not taxable at the general multipoint rate under section 3(1); the assessment classification made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was restored and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:25:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156755</link>
      <description>Tables, stools, trays, racks and similar articles sold to a match factory were treated as furniture under entry 121 of the First Schedule because the term &quot;furniture&quot; was construed in common parlance to include furniture used in homes, offices, factories and other places. Special design for factory use did not alter their character, and mere use in a factory did not make them factory equipment unless the statute expressly excluded them. The articles therefore fell within entry 121 and were not taxable at the general multipoint rate under section 3(1); the assessment classification made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was restored and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>