https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160785 Gudakhu was treated as falling within the exempted expression "tobacco" under Rule 3(28)(b), so it could not be taxed as a separate commodity or subjected to the impugned levy. The earlier co-ordinate Bench ruling, later affirmed on appeal, was applied as binding for the relevant assessment periods between the same parties. The analysis also proceeded on common parlance, under which gudakhu was not understood as a dentifrice. On that basis, the commodity remained exempt and the levy was excluded for the periods covered by the prior determination. en-us Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2013 16:36:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160785 Gudakhu was treated as falling within the exempted expression "tobacco" under Rule 3(28)(b), so it could not be taxed as a separate commodity or subjected to the impugned levy. The earlier co-ordinate Bench ruling, later affirmed on appeal, was applied as binding for the relevant assessment periods between the same parties. The analysis also proceeded on common parlance, under which gudakhu was not understood as a dentifrice. On that basis, the commodity remained exempt and the levy was excluded for the periods covered by the prior determination. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160785