<?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>2001 (9) TMI 1105 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161061</link>
    <description>Timber processing within a notified market area was treated as activity within the statutory definition of trader under the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972, because the scheme of the Act covers processing of notified agricultural produce and prohibits such business without a licence. As the petitioner&#039;s factory was located in the market area and its own application showed an intention to purchase, process and sell timber, the obligations to obtain a licence, file turnover returns and pay market fee applied. The notice requiring a fortnightly return was therefore not shown to be without jurisdiction, and the challenge to the levy and return requirements failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:29:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 1105 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161061</link>
      <description>Timber processing within a notified market area was treated as activity within the statutory definition of trader under the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972, because the scheme of the Act covers processing of notified agricultural produce and prohibits such business without a licence. As the petitioner&#039;s factory was located in the market area and its own application showed an intention to purchase, process and sell timber, the obligations to obtain a licence, file turnover returns and pay market fee applied. The notice requiring a fortnightly return was therefore not shown to be without jurisdiction, and the challenge to the levy and return requirements failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>