<?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>1985 (12) TMI 360 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188868</link>
    <description>The turnover of poppy seeds was held exempt because the assessee did not fall within the statutory meanings of either importer or manufacturer. Under the relevant definitions, an importer was the dealer making the first sale after import into the State, while manufacture covered producing, making, collecting, extracting, altering or otherwise processing goods. The Tribunal found that the poppy seeds were purchased from farmers and were not imported by the assessee. It also found that the collection activity was carried out by the farmers, not by the assessee. On those findings, the turnover was wrongly subjected to tax and exemption applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:24:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (12) TMI 360 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188868</link>
      <description>The turnover of poppy seeds was held exempt because the assessee did not fall within the statutory meanings of either importer or manufacturer. Under the relevant definitions, an importer was the dealer making the first sale after import into the State, while manufacture covered producing, making, collecting, extracting, altering or otherwise processing goods. The Tribunal found that the poppy seeds were purchased from farmers and were not imported by the assessee. It also found that the collection activity was carried out by the farmers, not by the assessee. On those findings, the turnover was wrongly subjected to tax and exemption applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>