<?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>1996 (1) TMI 400 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158422</link>
    <description>Bottles and crates used in the manufacture and sale of soft drinks were treated as &quot;plant&quot; because, where the deferment rules did not define the term, it had to be given its ordinary and popular meaning as business apparatus essential to the trade. On that basis, investment in those items qualified for deferment benefit. A factual objection based on circulars and notifications excluding such items from fixed capital investment was also rejected because it was not properly pleaded or supported by a counter-affidavit and material on record in the writ proceedings. The exclusionary defence was therefore not entertainable, and relief was granted to the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:21:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 400 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158422</link>
      <description>Bottles and crates used in the manufacture and sale of soft drinks were treated as &quot;plant&quot; because, where the deferment rules did not define the term, it had to be given its ordinary and popular meaning as business apparatus essential to the trade. On that basis, investment in those items qualified for deferment benefit. A factual objection based on circulars and notifications excluding such items from fixed capital investment was also rejected because it was not properly pleaded or supported by a counter-affidavit and material on record in the writ proceedings. The exclusionary defence was therefore not entertainable, and relief was granted to the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>