<?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 (11) TMI 393 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157043</link>
    <description>Rivets manufactured and sold during the relevant period did not fall within entry 119 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because that entry then covered bolts, rivets and nuts only in their threaded or tapped form and the later amendment including rivets was not yet operative. The Tribunal&#039;s classification treating rivets as permanent fasteners distinct from bolts and nuts was a plausible and reasonable view on the material available, so the revisional court could not interfere merely because another view was possible. Revision was therefore not justified, and the Tribunal&#039;s classification was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:49:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 393 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157043</link>
      <description>Rivets manufactured and sold during the relevant period did not fall within entry 119 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because that entry then covered bolts, rivets and nuts only in their threaded or tapped form and the later amendment including rivets was not yet operative. The Tribunal&#039;s classification treating rivets as permanent fasteners distinct from bolts and nuts was a plausible and reasonable view on the material available, so the revisional court could not interfere merely because another view was possible. Revision was therefore not justified, and the Tribunal&#039;s classification was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>