<?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>2004 (5) TMI 551 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162155</link>
    <description>Concessional purchase tax and entry tax were available only where raw material was used to manufacture goods for sale and the conditions in rule 20-B(iii) were fully met. The phrase &quot;for sale&quot; and the requirement that the manufactured goods &quot;shall be sold by the registered dealer&quot; were treated as clear limits on the concession, so mere job-work manufacture followed by return of the goods to the customer was insufficient. As the assessee did not sell the goods as a registered dealer and did not satisfy the attached conditions, the concession was denied. The Supreme Court authority cited by the assessee was distinguished because it construed different statutory language.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:02:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 551 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162155</link>
      <description>Concessional purchase tax and entry tax were available only where raw material was used to manufacture goods for sale and the conditions in rule 20-B(iii) were fully met. The phrase &quot;for sale&quot; and the requirement that the manufactured goods &quot;shall be sold by the registered dealer&quot; were treated as clear limits on the concession, so mere job-work manufacture followed by return of the goods to the customer was insufficient. As the assessee did not sell the goods as a registered dealer and did not satisfy the attached conditions, the concession was denied. The Supreme Court authority cited by the assessee was distinguished because it construed different statutory language.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>