https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164294 Rab sayar was not covered by the cane-crusher compounding scheme because the dealer's compounding applied only to the goods expressly listed in the scheme, namely rab galavat and rab salavat. The deeming treatment of rab, rab sayar, rab galavat and rab salavat as different goods under Explanation I(b) to section 3D(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could not be used to enlarge a separate compounding notification by interpretation. A commodity not expressly included in the scheme cannot be treated as covered by implication, and turnover from rab sayar remained taxable on the regular assessment basis. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:15:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164294 Rab sayar was not covered by the cane-crusher compounding scheme because the dealer's compounding applied only to the goods expressly listed in the scheme, namely rab galavat and rab salavat. The deeming treatment of rab, rab sayar, rab galavat and rab salavat as different goods under Explanation I(b) to section 3D(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could not be used to enlarge a separate compounding notification by interpretation. A commodity not expressly included in the scheme cannot be treated as covered by implication, and turnover from rab sayar remained taxable on the regular assessment basis. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164294