<?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>2000 (1) TMI 952 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160183</link>
    <description>Tarpaulin was treated as falling under specific taxable entries in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act rather than within the general exemption for cotton fabrics in the Third Schedule. The incorporated reference to cotton fabrics under the excise laws was read as part of the State Schedule, but the specific treatment of tarpaulin in the First Schedule, including later entries covering PVC cloth, water-proof cloth and rexine, prevailed over the broader exemption description. The withdrawn exemption notification and the later statutory scheme were read as showing an intention to tax tarpaulin at the prescribed rates. The article states that the declared goods argument did not displace the specific State entries.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:00:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 952 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160183</link>
      <description>Tarpaulin was treated as falling under specific taxable entries in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act rather than within the general exemption for cotton fabrics in the Third Schedule. The incorporated reference to cotton fabrics under the excise laws was read as part of the State Schedule, but the specific treatment of tarpaulin in the First Schedule, including later entries covering PVC cloth, water-proof cloth and rexine, prevailed over the broader exemption description. The withdrawn exemption notification and the later statutory scheme were read as showing an intention to tax tarpaulin at the prescribed rates. The article states that the declared goods argument did not displace the specific State entries.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>