<?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>2009 (10) TMI 839 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164426</link>
    <description>The court held that the acceptance of old gold ornaments as a deposit constitutes a purchase of old jewelry by the petitioner, attracting liability for purchase tax. Additionally, the return of the deposit in the form of new gold ornaments from the stock-in-trade is considered a sale, subject to tax. The court dismissed the revision, affirming the liability of the petitioner for both purchase and sale taxes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:42:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 839 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164426</link>
      <description>The court held that the acceptance of old gold ornaments as a deposit constitutes a purchase of old jewelry by the petitioner, attracting liability for purchase tax. Additionally, the return of the deposit in the form of new gold ornaments from the stock-in-trade is considered a sale, subject to tax. The court dismissed the revision, affirming the liability of the petitioner for both purchase and sale taxes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>