<?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>1980 (1) TMI 173 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152611</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;cosmetics and toilet requisites&quot; was construed in common parlance because it was not defined in the Act. The notification was read broadly, and items such as alta, lipstick, nail polish, beauty boxes, hair clips and hairpins showed that &quot;cosmetic&quot; was not confined to articles consumed in use. Tikuli, being worn by women for beautification and to alter appearance, fell within the popular meaning of a cosmetic requisite; the fact that it could be removed after use did not exclude it. Dictionary meanings were only aids and could not override commercial understanding. Tikuli was taxable as a cosmetic requisite, not as an unclassified item.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 173 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152611</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;cosmetics and toilet requisites&quot; was construed in common parlance because it was not defined in the Act. The notification was read broadly, and items such as alta, lipstick, nail polish, beauty boxes, hair clips and hairpins showed that &quot;cosmetic&quot; was not confined to articles consumed in use. Tikuli, being worn by women for beautification and to alter appearance, fell within the popular meaning of a cosmetic requisite; the fact that it could be removed after use did not exclude it. Dictionary meanings were only aids and could not override commercial understanding. Tikuli was taxable as a cosmetic requisite, not as an unclassified item.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>