<?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 973 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265698</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for sale and purchase of water pumps and diesel engines up to 10 HP was treated as a general exemption because it applied to an identifiable class of goods; on that basis, the exemption extended to inter-State sales under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The same exemption issue could not be reopened in a later revision because the Revenue had already raised the identical point earlier, that revision had been dismissed for non-prosecution, and the Tax Board&#039;s decision had attained finality. The settled nature and character of the transaction required consistency across assessment years, so the revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 973 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265698</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for sale and purchase of water pumps and diesel engines up to 10 HP was treated as a general exemption because it applied to an identifiable class of goods; on that basis, the exemption extended to inter-State sales under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The same exemption issue could not be reopened in a later revision because the Revenue had already raised the identical point earlier, that revision had been dismissed for non-prosecution, and the Tax Board&#039;s decision had attained finality. The settled nature and character of the transaction required consistency across assessment years, so the revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>