<?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 (5) TMI 470 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163679</link>
    <description>Trade tax revisional scrutiny was considered appropriate where the appellate authority and Tribunal failed to examine whether exemption applied to turnover from footwear traded under the registration certificate, notification and related circulars. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, was expected to determine both the department&#039;s objection that only goods manufactured by a qualifying small-scale or gramodyog industry were exempt and the assessee&#039;s case that trading in notified commodities was itself covered. Because no clear finding was recorded on manufacture, or on whether the exemption extended to traded footwear irrespective of manufacture, the appellate order was unsustainable and the matter was remitted for a fresh reasoned decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:57:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 470 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163679</link>
      <description>Trade tax revisional scrutiny was considered appropriate where the appellate authority and Tribunal failed to examine whether exemption applied to turnover from footwear traded under the registration certificate, notification and related circulars. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, was expected to determine both the department&#039;s objection that only goods manufactured by a qualifying small-scale or gramodyog industry were exempt and the assessee&#039;s case that trading in notified commodities was itself covered. Because no clear finding was recorded on manufacture, or on whether the exemption extended to traded footwear irrespective of manufacture, the appellate order was unsustainable and the matter was remitted for a fresh reasoned decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>