<?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>2021 (2) TMI 152 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403660</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Commercial Tax Tribunal&#039;s decision to modify the tax rate on portland cement from 12% to 9% for cement purchased from outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal ruled that the rebate on goods containing fly ash applied regardless of the chain of distribution, and traders were not required to maintain the same documentation as manufacturers. The Tribunal found no evidence that the goods were taxed at the full rate when sold to the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s objection. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, and the revision was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:28:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 152 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403660</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Commercial Tax Tribunal&#039;s decision to modify the tax rate on portland cement from 12% to 9% for cement purchased from outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal ruled that the rebate on goods containing fly ash applied regardless of the chain of distribution, and traders were not required to maintain the same documentation as manufacturers. The Tribunal found no evidence that the goods were taxed at the full rate when sold to the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s objection. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, and the revision was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>