<?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>1987 (8) TMI 410 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155184</link>
    <description>PVC cloth (rexine) was treated as cotton fabrics for the purpose of the exemption entry under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, because earlier binding decisions had already interpreted the same exemption provision that way. The court found no compelling ground to revisit that interpretation, so the Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld. The practical effect was that rexine remained exempt from tax under Entry 7 of Schedule III, and the revision petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:33:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 410 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155184</link>
      <description>PVC cloth (rexine) was treated as cotton fabrics for the purpose of the exemption entry under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, because earlier binding decisions had already interpreted the same exemption provision that way. The court found no compelling ground to revisit that interpretation, so the Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld. The practical effect was that rexine remained exempt from tax under Entry 7 of Schedule III, and the revision petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>