<?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>1978 (8) TMI 207 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152518</link>
    <description>Kulfi was held not to be &quot;cooked food&quot; because the expression in the taxing notification was confined to food cooked and taken as a meal, not every article prepared with heat. It was also held to be a milk product because milk remained its main constituent and the added ingredients only imparted sweetness and flavour. As a result, kulfi fell within the milk-product exemption and was not taxable under the later notification, so the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 18:16:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (8) TMI 207 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152518</link>
      <description>Kulfi was held not to be &quot;cooked food&quot; because the expression in the taxing notification was confined to food cooked and taken as a meal, not every article prepared with heat. It was also held to be a milk product because milk remained its main constituent and the added ingredients only imparted sweetness and flavour. As a result, kulfi fell within the milk-product exemption and was not taxable under the later notification, so the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>