<?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>2009 (5) TMI 1018 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311854</link>
    <description>The HC held that the blending and packing of tea do not constitute manufacturing under the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1998-99. The court determined that since the final product remained tea and did not result in a new commercial commodity with a distinct identity, it did not qualify as manufacturing. Citing previous SC and HC rulings, the court concluded that the activity did not meet the criteria for manufacturing. The decision favored the assessee, dismissing the State&#039;s revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 14:56:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=740362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 1018 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311854</link>
      <description>The HC held that the blending and packing of tea do not constitute manufacturing under the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1998-99. The court determined that since the final product remained tea and did not result in a new commercial commodity with a distinct identity, it did not qualify as manufacturing. Citing previous SC and HC rulings, the court concluded that the activity did not meet the criteria for manufacturing. The decision favored the assessee, dismissing the State&#039;s revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>