<?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 (8) TMI 261 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157294</link>
    <description>Finishing unfinished cupboards by painting them and fitting handles, locks and mirrors constituted manufacture under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act because the statutory definition covered altering, finishing and processing goods. The Tribunal found the skeleton cupboards had no marketability in that form and became saleable only after the assessee carried out the finishing operations, which were substantial rather than nominal. The activity therefore fell outside resale, since resale requires sale of goods in the same form or without doing anything that amounts to manufacture. The assessee was not entitled to treat the transaction as resale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:26:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 261 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157294</link>
      <description>Finishing unfinished cupboards by painting them and fitting handles, locks and mirrors constituted manufacture under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act because the statutory definition covered altering, finishing and processing goods. The Tribunal found the skeleton cupboards had no marketability in that form and became saleable only after the assessee carried out the finishing operations, which were substantial rather than nominal. The activity therefore fell outside resale, since resale requires sale of goods in the same form or without doing anything that amounts to manufacture. The assessee was not entitled to treat the transaction as resale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>