<?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>1975 (3) TMI 106 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150754</link>
    <description>Canned prawns were treated as the specific commodity &quot;prawns&quot; under item 65A rather than as &quot;foodstuffs sold in sealed containers&quot; under item 43. The Kerala HC applied harmonious construction and the popular, statutory meaning of fiscal entries, holding that a general entry cannot displace a specific one. Canning or sealing did not alter the essential character of the goods, so the levy based on item 65A was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:39:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 106 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150754</link>
      <description>Canned prawns were treated as the specific commodity &quot;prawns&quot; under item 65A rather than as &quot;foodstuffs sold in sealed containers&quot; under item 43. The Kerala HC applied harmonious construction and the popular, statutory meaning of fiscal entries, holding that a general entry cannot displace a specific one. Canning or sealing did not alter the essential character of the goods, so the levy based on item 65A was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>