<?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>1982 (12) TMI 167 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153682</link>
    <description>Under the common parlance test, an article is classifiable as soap only if it performs the ordinary function of a cleaning agent. Applying that principle, the court accepted the concurrent finding that &quot;Robin Blue&quot; was used only to add brightness to white clothes and did not clean clothes, so it was not soap under entry 48 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The alternative plea that it was a colour under entry 45 was not entertained because it had not been raised before the departmental authorities or the Tribunal and lacked a factual foundation, and revision could interfere only on a question of law wrongly decided or not decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:54:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (12) TMI 167 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153682</link>
      <description>Under the common parlance test, an article is classifiable as soap only if it performs the ordinary function of a cleaning agent. Applying that principle, the court accepted the concurrent finding that &quot;Robin Blue&quot; was used only to add brightness to white clothes and did not clean clothes, so it was not soap under entry 48 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The alternative plea that it was a colour under entry 45 was not entertained because it had not been raised before the departmental authorities or the Tribunal and lacked a factual foundation, and revision could interfere only on a question of law wrongly decided or not decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>