<?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>2001 (2) TMI 1029 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180943</link>
    <description>Filling LPG cylinders by transferring bulk LPG with admixture of air and safety fittings was treated as manufacture because the gas could not be marketed for consumer use in bulk form and became usable only after the filling process. The activity was therefore not a mere process of distribution. The court also held that the Scheme&#039;s ineligibility for repacking and the bottling entry in Annexure B did not apply: the bottling reference was confined to potable liquor or alcohol, and the cylinder-filling process involved manufacture rather than simple transfer from one container to another. The denial of sales-tax incentive was unsustainable and required reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2016 18:37:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 1029 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180943</link>
      <description>Filling LPG cylinders by transferring bulk LPG with admixture of air and safety fittings was treated as manufacture because the gas could not be marketed for consumer use in bulk form and became usable only after the filling process. The activity was therefore not a mere process of distribution. The court also held that the Scheme&#039;s ineligibility for repacking and the bottling entry in Annexure B did not apply: the bottling reference was confined to potable liquor or alcohol, and the cylinder-filling process involved manufacture rather than simple transfer from one container to another. The denial of sales-tax incentive was unsustainable and required reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>