<?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>1994 (5) TMI 241 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157394</link>
    <description>Sale proceeds of excess M.S. rounds arising during job-work conversion of billets were held outside the assessee&#039;s turnover because, under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, tax liability attaches only to taxable goods manufactured or processed by a dealer on its own account, and &quot;sale price&quot; is confined to the money consideration for such goods. As the conversion was done for the billet owners, the excess rounds did not constitute the job worker&#039;s own taxable sales. The court applied strict construction of the charging provision and rejected any extension of tax liability beyond the statute&#039;s clear terms; the assessment and demand were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 17:39:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 241 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157394</link>
      <description>Sale proceeds of excess M.S. rounds arising during job-work conversion of billets were held outside the assessee&#039;s turnover because, under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, tax liability attaches only to taxable goods manufactured or processed by a dealer on its own account, and &quot;sale price&quot; is confined to the money consideration for such goods. As the conversion was done for the billet owners, the excess rounds did not constitute the job worker&#039;s own taxable sales. The court applied strict construction of the charging provision and rejected any extension of tax liability beyond the statute&#039;s clear terms; the assessment and demand were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>