<?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>2000 (2) TMI 794 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160065</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court overturned the Trade Tax Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow an exemption claim for the turnover of rice bran under section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The dealer, not being a recognition certificate holder, failed to meet the conditions for exemption as rice bran was not considered a declared commodity under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court distinguished rice bran as a separate commercial commodity from rice, emphasizing the lack of a notification granting exemption for rice bran. Consequently, the exemption claim for rice bran was denied, and the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s order denying the exemption was reinstated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 18:17:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 794 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160065</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court overturned the Trade Tax Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow an exemption claim for the turnover of rice bran under section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The dealer, not being a recognition certificate holder, failed to meet the conditions for exemption as rice bran was not considered a declared commodity under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court distinguished rice bran as a separate commercial commodity from rice, emphasizing the lack of a notification granting exemption for rice bran. Consequently, the exemption claim for rice bran was denied, and the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s order denying the exemption was reinstated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>