<?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>1984 (11) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154301</link>
    <description>Plastic auto-sticking bindies were held to fall within the term &quot;kumkum&quot; under Schedule A because the expression was construed by prevailing usage and current conditions, extending beyond powder to liquid, pencil and similar forms. Although the goods could also answer the description of toilet requisites, that did not displace the more specific entry for kumkum. They were therefore treated as kumkum rather than toilet articles under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:47:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154301</link>
      <description>Plastic auto-sticking bindies were held to fall within the term &quot;kumkum&quot; under Schedule A because the expression was construed by prevailing usage and current conditions, extending beyond powder to liquid, pencil and similar forms. Although the goods could also answer the description of toilet requisites, that did not displace the more specific entry for kumkum. They were therefore treated as kumkum rather than toilet articles under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>