<?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>2009 (11) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203342</link>
    <description>Classification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was determined by the common parlance test where the schedule did not define the product. Vicks tablets, Vicks Vaporub and balm were found to have medicinal character and to be understood as Ayurvedic medicine, so their sale over the counter without prescription did not exclude them from Entry 36 of the Third Schedule. The residuary or confectionery entries could not apply when the goods were covered by that specific entry, resulting in taxation at the lower rate. The text also notes that a clarification under Section 94 can be challenged by a person aggrieved, and limitation may run from date of knowledge where the appellant did not seek the clarification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 08:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203342</link>
      <description>Classification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was determined by the common parlance test where the schedule did not define the product. Vicks tablets, Vicks Vaporub and balm were found to have medicinal character and to be understood as Ayurvedic medicine, so their sale over the counter without prescription did not exclude them from Entry 36 of the Third Schedule. The residuary or confectionery entries could not apply when the goods were covered by that specific entry, resulting in taxation at the lower rate. The text also notes that a clarification under Section 94 can be challenged by a person aggrieved, and limitation may run from date of knowledge where the appellant did not seek the clarification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>