<?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>2005 (10) TMI 509 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162267</link>
    <description>A stainless steel water filter was held not to qualify as a stainless steel utensil under entry C-II-46 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act read with concessional notification entry 145(1). The article&#039;s principal function was filtering water, and it was capable of use beyond household kitchens, so it was not ordinarily understood in popular parlance as a utensil. Because the exemption was a narrower provision for household stainless steel utensils, it had to be construed strictly, with doubt resolved in favour of the Revenue. The item was therefore characterised as an appliance, and concessional treatment was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:44:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 509 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162267</link>
      <description>A stainless steel water filter was held not to qualify as a stainless steel utensil under entry C-II-46 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act read with concessional notification entry 145(1). The article&#039;s principal function was filtering water, and it was capable of use beyond household kitchens, so it was not ordinarily understood in popular parlance as a utensil. Because the exemption was a narrower provision for household stainless steel utensils, it had to be construed strictly, with doubt resolved in favour of the Revenue. The item was therefore characterised as an appliance, and concessional treatment was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>