<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1018 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164513</link>
    <description>On a reference involving packing materials used for exported goods, the High Court held that it would not reappreciate evidence and accepted the Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the plastic drums and bags had their own identity, were reusable, separately classified, and were used for transport of the chemicals. On those facts, the Tribunal correctly treated the arrangement as involving implied sale of the packing material and properly distinguished the Revenue&#039;s precedent because it turned on materially different facts. The questions were therefore answered against the Revenue, and the finding that no purchase tax was leviable on the relevant purchases was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1018 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164513</link>
      <description>On a reference involving packing materials used for exported goods, the High Court held that it would not reappreciate evidence and accepted the Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the plastic drums and bags had their own identity, were reusable, separately classified, and were used for transport of the chemicals. On those facts, the Tribunal correctly treated the arrangement as involving implied sale of the packing material and properly distinguished the Revenue&#039;s precedent because it turned on materially different facts. The questions were therefore answered against the Revenue, and the finding that no purchase tax was leviable on the relevant purchases was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164513</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>