<?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>2017 (3) TMI 535 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340032</link>
    <description>Ballast, boulder and chips obtained from quarry operations were construed in their common and commercial sense and treated as minerals because the sales tax statute did not define the term otherwise. They therefore fell within the mineral entry taxable at 4%, rather than the residuary rate of 12%, and separately identifiable loading charges were excluded from taxable turnover as labour charges. The rate issue was also held to be a pure question of law arising from the statutory entry, so it could be raised for the first time in second appeal and was not barred by procedural objection or the absence of a cross-objection. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the revisions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 535 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340032</link>
      <description>Ballast, boulder and chips obtained from quarry operations were construed in their common and commercial sense and treated as minerals because the sales tax statute did not define the term otherwise. They therefore fell within the mineral entry taxable at 4%, rather than the residuary rate of 12%, and separately identifiable loading charges were excluded from taxable turnover as labour charges. The rate issue was also held to be a pure question of law arising from the statutory entry, so it could be raised for the first time in second appeal and was not barred by procedural objection or the absence of a cross-objection. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the revisions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>