<?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 (4) TMI 1082 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180650</link>
    <description>Entry tax was held payable on different grades of tea brought into a local area for blending and repacking because the charging provision turns on entry for use or consumption, not on whether the process amounts to manufacture. The Court treated blending as use of the goods within the local area and held that the manufacturing exclusion under commercial tax law did not alter liability under the entry tax statute. Penalty for non-payment of tax dues was also upheld because the statutory conditions under the penalty provision were satisfied by continued non-payment and resulting loss of revenue. Both challenges failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:39:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1082 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180650</link>
      <description>Entry tax was held payable on different grades of tea brought into a local area for blending and repacking because the charging provision turns on entry for use or consumption, not on whether the process amounts to manufacture. The Court treated blending as use of the goods within the local area and held that the manufacturing exclusion under commercial tax law did not alter liability under the entry tax statute. Penalty for non-payment of tax dues was also upheld because the statutory conditions under the penalty provision were satisfied by continued non-payment and resulting loss of revenue. Both challenges failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>