<?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>1998 (9) TMI 644 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160251</link>
    <description>Sales tax classification turned on the product&#039;s true commercial and technical identity under the relevant statutory definitions. Boroplus did not satisfy the requirements for a homeopathic medicine, Ayurvedic drug, drug, or patent or proprietary medicine because the evidence did not establish homeopathic provings, clinical efficacy, or manufacture in accordance with the prescribed Ayurvedic formulae; it was therefore correctly treated as a cosmetic. Fresh assessments could not be extended to products other than Boroplus, because the earlier direction to reassess was confined to that product alone, and reassessment beyond that scope was unauthorised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:37:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 644 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160251</link>
      <description>Sales tax classification turned on the product&#039;s true commercial and technical identity under the relevant statutory definitions. Boroplus did not satisfy the requirements for a homeopathic medicine, Ayurvedic drug, drug, or patent or proprietary medicine because the evidence did not establish homeopathic provings, clinical efficacy, or manufacture in accordance with the prescribed Ayurvedic formulae; it was therefore correctly treated as a cosmetic. Fresh assessments could not be extended to products other than Boroplus, because the earlier direction to reassess was confined to that product alone, and reassessment beyond that scope was unauthorised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>