<?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>1970 (8) TMI 64 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100731</link>
    <description>Tooth powder was classified in its popular and common parlance sense as a cosmetic or toilet requisite because the Act did not define those terms and the article is used for personal grooming and cleansing. Applying the settled common parlance test and noting support from other High Courts, it was treated as a toilet good rather than an unspecified commodity. It was therefore liable to tax at the single point under the relevant sales tax provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (8) TMI 64 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100731</link>
      <description>Tooth powder was classified in its popular and common parlance sense as a cosmetic or toilet requisite because the Act did not define those terms and the article is used for personal grooming and cleansing. Applying the settled common parlance test and noting support from other High Courts, it was treated as a toilet good rather than an unspecified commodity. It was therefore liable to tax at the single point under the relevant sales tax provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>