Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1993 (2) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Both these revision cases raise for consideration a common question, whether muddagur is liable to be taxed under entry 1, Schedule V of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, at 0.07 paise as jaggery, or is liable to tax under entry 55, Schedule I of the said Act at 25 per cent as molasses. In T.R.C. No. 3 of 1986 the assessing authority found that the sales of muddagur is liable to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it is boiled by way of open pan process and the liquid called rab is derived, from which, what is called, crushed sugar is derived. The resultant fluid is treated as first sugar. At this stage, second sugar is derived. The khandasari sugar after deriving second sugar is heated for a long time and is mixed with sanjeera powder which resulted in the yield of lump jaggery. According to the petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs tried to canvass that the decision in T.R.C. No. 18 of 1980 requires reconsideration on the ground that the matter was not fully argued before the Division Bench. We do not find any new ground raised now, meriting reconsideration of the decision of the earlier Division Bench. Moreover, the decision of the Division Bench in T.R.C. No. 18 of 1980 has been the law from the year 1982 and has been f....