<?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>2019 (8) TMI 124 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383935</link>
    <description>Brake shoe castings remained classifiable as metal castings under notification entry no. 4 of Schedule-II Part-A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 because the relevant entry covered all metal castings, whether raw or processed, and machining did not change the commodity&#039;s essential character. The fact that the goods continued to be identified as metal castings was decisive, so they could not be treated as unclassified goods liable to a higher rate. The earlier final classification of the same goods in the assessee&#039;s favour also supported the same result under the rule of consistency, so the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2019 07:32:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 124 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383935</link>
      <description>Brake shoe castings remained classifiable as metal castings under notification entry no. 4 of Schedule-II Part-A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 because the relevant entry covered all metal castings, whether raw or processed, and machining did not change the commodity&#039;s essential character. The fact that the goods continued to be identified as metal castings was decisive, so they could not be treated as unclassified goods liable to a higher rate. The earlier final classification of the same goods in the assessee&#039;s favour also supported the same result under the rule of consistency, so the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>