<?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>1998 (11) TMI 629 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159876</link>
    <description>Rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 allows drawback, set-off or refund only when purchased raw materials or consumable stores are used to manufacture taxable goods and the manufacturer satisfies rule 47(1)(A) by being liable to pay tax on the sale of those goods. Exemption for particular transactions does not, by itself, mean the goods cease to be taxable goods. For cooked food supplied to customers, the pre-Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act position treated meal supply as service rather than sale, and section 6 of that Act validated such transactions only within its limited retrospective scope. On the stated facts, the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the relevant supplies and therefore did not qualify for the refund benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:20:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 629 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159876</link>
      <description>Rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 allows drawback, set-off or refund only when purchased raw materials or consumable stores are used to manufacture taxable goods and the manufacturer satisfies rule 47(1)(A) by being liable to pay tax on the sale of those goods. Exemption for particular transactions does not, by itself, mean the goods cease to be taxable goods. For cooked food supplied to customers, the pre-Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act position treated meal supply as service rather than sale, and section 6 of that Act validated such transactions only within its limited retrospective scope. On the stated facts, the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the relevant supplies and therefore did not qualify for the refund benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>