<?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>2006 (8) TMI 552 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162832</link>
    <description>Robinson barley, after technical processing and fortification with ingredients such as iron and calcium, acquired a distinct commercial identity and was no longer treated as the same commodity as barley under the common parlance test. It therefore could not claim classification as barley or cereals for first-point sales tax treatment at 4%, and it also failed to qualify as declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act. The challenge to the tax classification was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:56:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 552 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162832</link>
      <description>Robinson barley, after technical processing and fortification with ingredients such as iron and calcium, acquired a distinct commercial identity and was no longer treated as the same commodity as barley under the common parlance test. It therefore could not claim classification as barley or cereals for first-point sales tax treatment at 4%, and it also failed to qualify as declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act. The challenge to the tax classification was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>