<?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>1967 (6) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144197</link>
    <description>Prawn pulp preserved by sun-drying remained within the notified expression &quot;prawn&quot; because drying was a preservation method, not a process creating a distinct commodity. The essential identity of the goods as prawns remained unchanged despite curing in the traditional manner. Consequently, dried prawns, including the commodity concerned, fell within the notification&#039;s scope, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:39:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (6) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144197</link>
      <description>Prawn pulp preserved by sun-drying remained within the notified expression &quot;prawn&quot; because drying was a preservation method, not a process creating a distinct commodity. The essential identity of the goods as prawns remained unchanged despite curing in the traditional manner. Consequently, dried prawns, including the commodity concerned, fell within the notification&#039;s scope, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>