<?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>2012 (11) TMI 1043 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167682</link>
    <description>Telephone exchange equipment and related items were treated as machinery and spare parts for entry tax purposes because the items functioned only as an integrated system with no independent utility. The notification covering machinery and spare parts valuing ten lacs or more was construed broadly, so the value of the whole interconnected set was taken together rather than item by item. Electronic and communication equipment used to provide telephone services was held to fall within the ordinary meaning of machinery, and the absence of a separate entry for electronic goods did not exclude them. The levy of entry tax was therefore valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1043 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167682</link>
      <description>Telephone exchange equipment and related items were treated as machinery and spare parts for entry tax purposes because the items functioned only as an integrated system with no independent utility. The notification covering machinery and spare parts valuing ten lacs or more was construed broadly, so the value of the whole interconnected set was taken together rather than item by item. Electronic and communication equipment used to provide telephone services was held to fall within the ordinary meaning of machinery, and the absence of a separate entry for electronic goods did not exclude them. The levy of entry tax was therefore valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>