<?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 (1) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157946</link>
    <description>Cotton sewing thread made from cotton yarn by dyeing, rewinding, packing and labelling was held to be a distinct commercial commodity and not cotton yarn. Reading the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 with the relevant definitions and rule, the Court applied common parlance and trade parlance to hold that yarn and sewing thread are separate goods with different uses. Because the processed product no longer answered the description of declared goods as cotton yarn, the transaction was not treated as a resale of declared goods and did not attract the exemption claimed. The questions were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:55:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=320451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157946</link>
      <description>Cotton sewing thread made from cotton yarn by dyeing, rewinding, packing and labelling was held to be a distinct commercial commodity and not cotton yarn. Reading the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 with the relevant definitions and rule, the Court applied common parlance and trade parlance to hold that yarn and sewing thread are separate goods with different uses. Because the processed product no longer answered the description of declared goods as cotton yarn, the transaction was not treated as a resale of declared goods and did not attract the exemption claimed. The questions were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>