<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1329 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166491</link>
    <description>In a works contract, the value of goods used is taxable under section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, and deduction under section 3F(2)(b)(iii) is available only if the assessee proves that tax on the relevant goods was levied or was leviable at an earlier stage. The assessee bears the burden of showing that the bricks were purchased from a dealer covered by the compounding scheme under section 7D. In the absence of a purchase voucher, that foundational fact was not established, so the claimed deduction or exemption failed. The point of levy under the notification was held irrelevant to liability under section 3F, because the notification governed rate of tax, not the stage at which the commodity became taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1329 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166491</link>
      <description>In a works contract, the value of goods used is taxable under section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, and deduction under section 3F(2)(b)(iii) is available only if the assessee proves that tax on the relevant goods was levied or was leviable at an earlier stage. The assessee bears the burden of showing that the bricks were purchased from a dealer covered by the compounding scheme under section 7D. In the absence of a purchase voucher, that foundational fact was not established, so the claimed deduction or exemption failed. The point of levy under the notification was held irrelevant to liability under section 3F, because the notification governed rate of tax, not the stage at which the commodity became taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>