<?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 (11) TMI 1068 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388819</link>
    <description>Later taxing notifications that deliberately omitted motor bodies from the motor vehicle entry did not bring fabricated bus bodies on supplied chassis within tax as motor vehicles or component parts. The assessee only fabricated bus bodies on chassis owned by others and did not purchase chassis or sell completed buses, and the 2001 amendment did not restore motor bodies to the entry. Earlier notifications could not control the later wording, and the works-contract notification of 1987 did not change the classification. A plea based on Section 3F was not decided because it was raised belatedly. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1068 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388819</link>
      <description>Later taxing notifications that deliberately omitted motor bodies from the motor vehicle entry did not bring fabricated bus bodies on supplied chassis within tax as motor vehicles or component parts. The assessee only fabricated bus bodies on chassis owned by others and did not purchase chassis or sell completed buses, and the 2001 amendment did not restore motor bodies to the entry. Earlier notifications could not control the later wording, and the works-contract notification of 1987 did not change the classification. A plea based on Section 3F was not decided because it was raised belatedly. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>