<?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 (11) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148641</link>
    <description>Hospital articles other than operation tables were not treated as &quot;furniture&quot; under the notification because the term had to be understood in its ordinary and popular sense, not technically or artificially. The relevant test was whether the goods were commonly recognised as furniture in everyday usage, having regard to their function, and the mere fact that they could be used in a domestic setting was insufficient. As the catalogue described the disputed items as hospital equipment specially designed for hospital use, and the revenue failed to show that they were generally accepted as furniture, they were liable to tax as unclassified goods under the general charging provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 15:00:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (11) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148641</link>
      <description>Hospital articles other than operation tables were not treated as &quot;furniture&quot; under the notification because the term had to be understood in its ordinary and popular sense, not technically or artificially. The relevant test was whether the goods were commonly recognised as furniture in everyday usage, having regard to their function, and the mere fact that they could be used in a domestic setting was insufficient. As the catalogue described the disputed items as hospital equipment specially designed for hospital use, and the revenue failed to show that they were generally accepted as furniture, they were liable to tax as unclassified goods under the general charging provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>