<?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 (10) TMI 213 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264938</link>
    <description>Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 allowed drawback, set-off or refund on specified purchases used in manufacture for sale or export, and its inclusive meaning of &quot;export&quot; covered despatches to the dealer&#039;s own place of business or agent outside the State when supported by form 31C. The Revenue could not go behind that certificate to deny relief merely because the goods were later used in works contracts in other States. The wider question whether the other States&#039; works contract law affected the meaning of &quot;sale&quot; was unnecessary to decide. On that footing, set-off was held to be admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 213 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264938</link>
      <description>Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 allowed drawback, set-off or refund on specified purchases used in manufacture for sale or export, and its inclusive meaning of &quot;export&quot; covered despatches to the dealer&#039;s own place of business or agent outside the State when supported by form 31C. The Revenue could not go behind that certificate to deny relief merely because the goods were later used in works contracts in other States. The wider question whether the other States&#039; works contract law affected the meaning of &quot;sale&quot; was unnecessary to decide. On that footing, set-off was held to be admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>