<?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 (9) TMI 337 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158447</link>
    <description>Sales of timber, firewood, karuvai, eucalyptus, wattle and blue gum were treated as exempt or not taxable where records established that the dealer was a second seller rather than the first taxable seller. Classification depended on the goods&#039; actual commercial character and the purchase and sale records; karuvai was accepted as firewood absent material showing otherwise. Softwood could be characterised as firewood or timber, but no further single-point levy arose because the dealer remained a second seller. The proposed enhancement of tax on softwood was therefore rejected, and the disputed turnover was not taxable in the dealer&#039;s hands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:58:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 337 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158447</link>
      <description>Sales of timber, firewood, karuvai, eucalyptus, wattle and blue gum were treated as exempt or not taxable where records established that the dealer was a second seller rather than the first taxable seller. Classification depended on the goods&#039; actual commercial character and the purchase and sale records; karuvai was accepted as firewood absent material showing otherwise. Softwood could be characterised as firewood or timber, but no further single-point levy arose because the dealer remained a second seller. The proposed enhancement of tax on softwood was therefore rejected, and the disputed turnover was not taxable in the dealer&#039;s hands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>