<?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>2008 (1) TMI 851 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163608</link>
    <description>Concessional tax under section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act applied only where industrial raw materials were actually sold to an industrial unit for use in producing finished products inside the State for sale. In a works contract for electro-powder coating, the assessee merely used epoxy powder in executing the contract and did not itself use the goods in its own manufacturing process. A deemed sale under the works contract provisions and production of Form 18 declarations were insufficient by themselves to establish entitlement to the concession. The Revenue&#039;s position was therefore sustained and the concessional rate was denied on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 851 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163608</link>
      <description>Concessional tax under section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act applied only where industrial raw materials were actually sold to an industrial unit for use in producing finished products inside the State for sale. In a works contract for electro-powder coating, the assessee merely used epoxy powder in executing the contract and did not itself use the goods in its own manufacturing process. A deemed sale under the works contract provisions and production of Form 18 declarations were insufficient by themselves to establish entitlement to the concession. The Revenue&#039;s position was therefore sustained and the concessional rate was denied on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>