<?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 (9) TMI 1034 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161056</link>
    <description>Bottling LPG into cylinders is treated as a mere transfer for transport and consumption, not as manufacture, because it does not create a new and distinct commercial article with a different name, character or use. The suggested mercaptan blending basis was rejected on the facts, as the evidence did not show that such processing occurred at the bottling plant. The article also explains that the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules provide only two revisional tiers, so a third revision before the Additional Commissioner was beyond statutory competence and without jurisdiction. On that basis, the challenge to the registration amendment and the later revisional order was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:18:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 1034 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161056</link>
      <description>Bottling LPG into cylinders is treated as a mere transfer for transport and consumption, not as manufacture, because it does not create a new and distinct commercial article with a different name, character or use. The suggested mercaptan blending basis was rejected on the facts, as the evidence did not show that such processing occurred at the bottling plant. The article also explains that the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules provide only two revisional tiers, so a third revision before the Additional Commissioner was beyond statutory competence and without jurisdiction. On that basis, the challenge to the registration amendment and the later revisional order was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>