<?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 1119 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183309</link>
    <description>Input tax credit on packing material was analysed under the Uttarakhand VAT Act in the context of finished goods transferred to depots or godowns in other States otherwise than by sale. The text explains that stock transfer is distinct from an inter-State sale, so section 6 did not support the claimed credit on packing material as an additional benefit. It also states that a later circular aligned with the statute and superseded the earlier circular to the extent of inconsistency. On constitutional grounds, the proviso to section 6(3) was treated as an incentive provision, not discriminatory trade restriction, and the article concludes that the statutory and constitutional challenge was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1119 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183309</link>
      <description>Input tax credit on packing material was analysed under the Uttarakhand VAT Act in the context of finished goods transferred to depots or godowns in other States otherwise than by sale. The text explains that stock transfer is distinct from an inter-State sale, so section 6 did not support the claimed credit on packing material as an additional benefit. It also states that a later circular aligned with the statute and superseded the earlier circular to the extent of inconsistency. On constitutional grounds, the proviso to section 6(3) was treated as an incentive provision, not discriminatory trade restriction, and the article concludes that the statutory and constitutional challenge was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>