<?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 (10) TMI 1126 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161392</link>
    <description>Raw rubber latex and centrifuged latex were treated as commercially distinct commodities because the processing converted the raw material into a product with a separate identity and price structure. On that basis, the levy of purchase tax on the assessee&#039;s purchase turnover of raw rubber latex used to produce centrifuged latex was upheld under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The fact that both items appeared in the same First Schedule entry did not prevent separate taxation of different commodities, and the single-point taxation principle did not bar the levy. A departmental circular could not override the statutory scheme, and no exemption notification was shown. The revision was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:06:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1126 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161392</link>
      <description>Raw rubber latex and centrifuged latex were treated as commercially distinct commodities because the processing converted the raw material into a product with a separate identity and price structure. On that basis, the levy of purchase tax on the assessee&#039;s purchase turnover of raw rubber latex used to produce centrifuged latex was upheld under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The fact that both items appeared in the same First Schedule entry did not prevent separate taxation of different commodities, and the single-point taxation principle did not bar the levy. A departmental circular could not override the statutory scheme, and no exemption notification was shown. The revision was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>