<?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>2015 (8) TMI 498 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262581</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;tool&quot; in Entry 6(ix) of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was read as an independent item, not as part of the composite phrases &quot;tool steel&quot;, &quot;alloy steel&quot; or &quot;special steel&quot;; on that construction, finished hand tools such as open jaw spanners fall within the declared-goods entry and attract tax at the declared-goods rate of 4 per cent rather than the residuary entry. The court also treated a coordinate Bench ruling on the same point as binding, absent any showing that it was per incuriam. On procedure, the Tribunal was justified in allowing an additional ground in second appeal challenging tax liability, because the taxability issue went to the root of the matter and had been fully argued without demonstrated prejudice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 498 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262581</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;tool&quot; in Entry 6(ix) of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was read as an independent item, not as part of the composite phrases &quot;tool steel&quot;, &quot;alloy steel&quot; or &quot;special steel&quot;; on that construction, finished hand tools such as open jaw spanners fall within the declared-goods entry and attract tax at the declared-goods rate of 4 per cent rather than the residuary entry. The court also treated a coordinate Bench ruling on the same point as binding, absent any showing that it was per incuriam. On procedure, the Tribunal was justified in allowing an additional ground in second appeal challenging tax liability, because the taxability issue went to the root of the matter and had been fully argued without demonstrated prejudice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>