<?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>1995 (6) TMI 186 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157815</link>
    <description>Timber logs and sawn timber were held to be the same commercial commodity for sales tax purposes because sawing only changes form and does not create a new article with a distinct name, character or use. The revisional order was based on the erroneous assumption that logs and sawn timber were different items, so that finding was quashed. Consequential demand notices founded on the same mistaken separation were also quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:33:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (6) TMI 186 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157815</link>
      <description>Timber logs and sawn timber were held to be the same commercial commodity for sales tax purposes because sawing only changes form and does not create a new article with a distinct name, character or use. The revisional order was based on the erroneous assumption that logs and sawn timber were different items, so that finding was quashed. Consequential demand notices founded on the same mistaken separation were also quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>