<?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>2013 (7) TMI 866 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168949</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the revision applications concerning the assessment of a trade tax dealer for using imported timbers for manufacturing goods at a location other than the registered office. The assessing officer&#039;s contention that the timbers were being sold as is, without manufacturing, was refuted. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the dealer, stating that as long as the timbers were used for manufacturing, the specific location did not matter. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the lack of clarity on the requirement for manufacturing at the registered address and dismissing the assessing officer&#039;s conclusions for lack of evidence of non-compliance with exemption conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 20:00:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 866 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168949</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the revision applications concerning the assessment of a trade tax dealer for using imported timbers for manufacturing goods at a location other than the registered office. The assessing officer&#039;s contention that the timbers were being sold as is, without manufacturing, was refuted. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the dealer, stating that as long as the timbers were used for manufacturing, the specific location did not matter. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the lack of clarity on the requirement for manufacturing at the registered address and dismissing the assessing officer&#039;s conclusions for lack of evidence of non-compliance with exemption conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>