<?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>1968 (2) TMI 110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148430</link>
    <description>&quot;Perfumed oil&quot; under entry 39 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with the notification dated 19 November 1954, was construed in its plain sense as oil to which perfume is positively and deliberately added, not merely oil with a pleasant odour. The classification had to be tested against the notification&#039;s object, which exempted oils for toilet use except perfumed oils. On the material before the authorities, the oil&#039;s ingredients showed medicinal properties, and the presence of some perfume-like ingredients did not by itself establish that the product was perfumed within the entry. The sample-based impression of the Tribunal could not replace the correct legal test, so the oil was held outside entry 39 and within the residuary treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:52:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (2) TMI 110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148430</link>
      <description>&quot;Perfumed oil&quot; under entry 39 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with the notification dated 19 November 1954, was construed in its plain sense as oil to which perfume is positively and deliberately added, not merely oil with a pleasant odour. The classification had to be tested against the notification&#039;s object, which exempted oils for toilet use except perfumed oils. On the material before the authorities, the oil&#039;s ingredients showed medicinal properties, and the presence of some perfume-like ingredients did not by itself establish that the product was perfumed within the entry. The sample-based impression of the Tribunal could not replace the correct legal test, so the oil was held outside entry 39 and within the residuary treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>