<?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>2004 (4) TMI 541 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161730</link>
    <description>Diagnostic reagents used in pathological testing were held not to fall within the sales tax entry for medicinal formulations or preparations ready for use in treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease. The Court treated diagnosis as distinct from treatment and noted that the relevant amendment had deliberately omitted diagnostic goods from the specific entry during the years in question; they therefore fell under the residuary entry. It also held that certificates and expert opinions could not control classification where the statutory language was clear and unambiguous. The evidence was rightly rejected for classification purposes because external material cannot expand the scope of a plain taxing entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:38:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 541 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161730</link>
      <description>Diagnostic reagents used in pathological testing were held not to fall within the sales tax entry for medicinal formulations or preparations ready for use in treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease. The Court treated diagnosis as distinct from treatment and noted that the relevant amendment had deliberately omitted diagnostic goods from the specific entry during the years in question; they therefore fell under the residuary entry. It also held that certificates and expert opinions could not control classification where the statutory language was clear and unambiguous. The evidence was rightly rejected for classification purposes because external material cannot expand the scope of a plain taxing entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>