<?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>2005 (1) TMI 641 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161892</link>
    <description>Arkil and born villa seeds were treated as vegetable seeds within the scope of the 31 January 1985 exemption notification and were therefore exempt from trade tax. The classification was supported by certificates from the Directorate of Horticulture, evidence from a horticulture expert, and accounting records showing separate treatment of these seeds from matar. The court accepted the concurrent factual finding that the seeds were used to raise plants producing vegetable pods, and held that their possible association with food preparation did not alter their essential character. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because no contrary evidence displaced the record-based finding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:38:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 641 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161892</link>
      <description>Arkil and born villa seeds were treated as vegetable seeds within the scope of the 31 January 1985 exemption notification and were therefore exempt from trade tax. The classification was supported by certificates from the Directorate of Horticulture, evidence from a horticulture expert, and accounting records showing separate treatment of these seeds from matar. The court accepted the concurrent factual finding that the seeds were used to raise plants producing vegetable pods, and held that their possible association with food preparation did not alter their essential character. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because no contrary evidence displaced the record-based finding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>