<?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>1956 (6) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127515</link>
    <description>Talcum powders sold as toilet powders were analysed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act by comparing the ordinary and commercial meaning of &quot;toilet articles&quot; and &quot;cosmetics&quot;. Because the goods could be used after bathing and for general toilet purposes, but were also capable of use as face powders and were marketed as beautifying products, they fell within the wider concept of cosmetics as aids to beautification. Even if the products also answered the description of toilet articles, the more specific entry for cosmetics prevailed over the wider entry for toilet articles. The powders were therefore classifiable as cosmetics under entry 66, not under entry 39.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:16:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (6) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127515</link>
      <description>Talcum powders sold as toilet powders were analysed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act by comparing the ordinary and commercial meaning of &quot;toilet articles&quot; and &quot;cosmetics&quot;. Because the goods could be used after bathing and for general toilet purposes, but were also capable of use as face powders and were marketed as beautifying products, they fell within the wider concept of cosmetics as aids to beautification. Even if the products also answered the description of toilet articles, the more specific entry for cosmetics prevailed over the wider entry for toilet articles. The powders were therefore classifiable as cosmetics under entry 66, not under entry 39.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>