<?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 (10) TMI 808 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387324</link>
    <description>Taxability under the entry tax regime depended on a clear, item-wise finding that the assessee had imported machinery or parts of machinery of the requisite value, because the levy turned on the nature and value of each individual item rather than a composite bill value. A general statement that some electronic goods may be treated as machinery was insufficient without reasoned determination of the disputed goods. The adjudicating authority also had to consider the assessee&#039;s plea that goods separately classified under the value added tax schedule were excluded from entry-tax coverage, as well as the effect of the later amendment to the entry-tax schedule. As those material objections were not addressed with necessary findings, the order could not be sustained and required reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2020 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 808 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387324</link>
      <description>Taxability under the entry tax regime depended on a clear, item-wise finding that the assessee had imported machinery or parts of machinery of the requisite value, because the levy turned on the nature and value of each individual item rather than a composite bill value. A general statement that some electronic goods may be treated as machinery was insufficient without reasoned determination of the disputed goods. The adjudicating authority also had to consider the assessee&#039;s plea that goods separately classified under the value added tax schedule were excluded from entry-tax coverage, as well as the effect of the later amendment to the entry-tax schedule. As those material objections were not addressed with necessary findings, the order could not be sustained and required reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>