<?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 (8) TMI 837 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164095</link>
    <description>Mefron gas was treated as chloro-flouro hydrocarbon and, on that basis, classified as a chemical taxable at 10% rather than as an accessory to refrigeration and air-conditioners taxable at 15%. The record did not show that mefron gas was a different substance, and the material before the assessing authority was insufficient to dislodge the classification finding. The Court also held that a disputed question of fact or a debatable question of law cannot be reopened in rectification proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The rectification was therefore sustained and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:45:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 837 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164095</link>
      <description>Mefron gas was treated as chloro-flouro hydrocarbon and, on that basis, classified as a chemical taxable at 10% rather than as an accessory to refrigeration and air-conditioners taxable at 15%. The record did not show that mefron gas was a different substance, and the material before the assessing authority was insufficient to dislodge the classification finding. The Court also held that a disputed question of fact or a debatable question of law cannot be reopened in rectification proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The rectification was therefore sustained and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>