<?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 (9) TMI 609 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174073</link>
    <description>The producer exemption under the agricultural marketing law applies only to the actual grower or producer of the agricultural produce sold by him, and not to a purchaser who merely processes another&#039;s produce into a scheduled end product. Because the respondents bought khairwood from others and manufactured katha, they could not claim producer status and were not exempt from licence and market fee requirements. They were also treated as dealers within the notified market area, as they carried on processing and sale activities covered by the Act. The appeal succeeded, the High Court&#039;s order was set aside, and the respondents remained liable to obtain a licence and pay market fee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:28:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 609 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174073</link>
      <description>The producer exemption under the agricultural marketing law applies only to the actual grower or producer of the agricultural produce sold by him, and not to a purchaser who merely processes another&#039;s produce into a scheduled end product. Because the respondents bought khairwood from others and manufactured katha, they could not claim producer status and were not exempt from licence and market fee requirements. They were also treated as dealers within the notified market area, as they carried on processing and sale activities covered by the Act. The appeal succeeded, the High Court&#039;s order was set aside, and the respondents remained liable to obtain a licence and pay market fee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>