<?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>1979 (7) TMI 214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152367</link>
    <description>Dry-cell batteries imported and sold as hearing-aid accessories were treated as exempt goods under item 41 of the exempted list because their true commercial identity and intended use were as accessories of electrical hearing-aids. The court reasoned that possible alternative uses did not change their character where they were imported and dealt with for hearing-aid use. On that basis, the batteries fell within the exemption and the related turnover was not taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:36:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (7) TMI 214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152367</link>
      <description>Dry-cell batteries imported and sold as hearing-aid accessories were treated as exempt goods under item 41 of the exempted list because their true commercial identity and intended use were as accessories of electrical hearing-aids. The court reasoned that possible alternative uses did not change their character where they were imported and dealt with for hearing-aid use. On that basis, the batteries fell within the exemption and the related turnover was not taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>