<?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 (11) TMI 555 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163479</link>
    <description>A writ petition was held maintainable despite an alternate statutory appeal because the dispute was recurring, involved no real factual controversy, and the material classification facts were not traversed. On classification, microprocessor-based, automatically controlled electronic video and data projectors were treated as electronic goods rather than cinematographic equipment, since their true character as electronic devices prevailed over any overlapping description. The projectors were therefore taxable under the electronic goods entry in the notification, not at the higher rate for cinematographic equipment, and the higher levy was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 555 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163479</link>
      <description>A writ petition was held maintainable despite an alternate statutory appeal because the dispute was recurring, involved no real factual controversy, and the material classification facts were not traversed. On classification, microprocessor-based, automatically controlled electronic video and data projectors were treated as electronic goods rather than cinematographic equipment, since their true character as electronic devices prevailed over any overlapping description. The projectors were therefore taxable under the electronic goods entry in the notification, not at the higher rate for cinematographic equipment, and the higher levy was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>