<?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 (4) TMI 1241 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193478</link>
    <description>Goods marketed and used as finished waterproofing, sealing and bonding materials in civil construction were treated as falling outside the specific industrial-input entry in Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The court applied the common parlance test and found that the products were not inputs consumed in manufacture of a commercially different article; the test reports only showed chemical nature and did not establish classification as chemicals for the specific entry. As the goods did not answer the specific description, the residuary Schedule V applied and the assessee&#039;s claim for Schedule IV treatment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1241 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193478</link>
      <description>Goods marketed and used as finished waterproofing, sealing and bonding materials in civil construction were treated as falling outside the specific industrial-input entry in Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The court applied the common parlance test and found that the products were not inputs consumed in manufacture of a commercially different article; the test reports only showed chemical nature and did not establish classification as chemicals for the specific entry. As the goods did not answer the specific description, the residuary Schedule V applied and the assessee&#039;s claim for Schedule IV treatment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>