<?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>1996 (7) TMI 558 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171315</link>
    <description>Chemically treated and processed foodgrains sold as seeds were treated as a distinct commercial commodity, not as agricultural produce within the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act Schedule merely because the original grain was listed. Although the statutory definition of agricultural produce was wide and inclusive, the Schedule required express or clear coverage of processed forms, and the fact that certain processed products were separately named showed that inclusion was not automatic. The notification excluding certified and foundation seeds did not imply that all other treated seeds were covered. On that basis, licence and market fee liability for such processed seeds was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2016 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 558 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171315</link>
      <description>Chemically treated and processed foodgrains sold as seeds were treated as a distinct commercial commodity, not as agricultural produce within the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act Schedule merely because the original grain was listed. Although the statutory definition of agricultural produce was wide and inclusive, the Schedule required express or clear coverage of processed forms, and the fact that certain processed products were separately named showed that inclusion was not automatic. The notification excluding certified and foundation seeds did not imply that all other treated seeds were covered. On that basis, licence and market fee liability for such processed seeds was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>