<?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>2025 (9) TMI 1399 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778910</link>
    <description>A DEPB licence was treated as marketable goods with intrinsic value, so its sale fell within the sales tax entry and was exigible to tax. The exemption claim under Notification Entry A-94 failed because the assessee did not produce documentary evidence showing compliance with the prescribed conditions, and the entitlement issue was treated as factual. Both referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1399 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778910</link>
      <description>A DEPB licence was treated as marketable goods with intrinsic value, so its sale fell within the sales tax entry and was exigible to tax. The exemption claim under Notification Entry A-94 failed because the assessee did not produce documentary evidence showing compliance with the prescribed conditions, and the entitlement issue was treated as factual. Both referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>