<?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>2009 (11) TMI 824 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164160</link>
    <description>A manufacturer could maintain an appeal under section 62 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act against a clarification issued under section 94, even though it was not the original applicant, because the clarification directly bound assessing authorities and affected its tax position; the preliminary objection was overruled. Vicks tablets, Vicks balm and Vicks Vaporub were then held classifiable under entry 36 of the Third Schedule as drugs or medicines, applying the common parlance and commercial identity tests, and the fact that they were sold over the counter did not alter their medicinal character; they therefore attracted tax at 4 per cent rather than the residuary rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 824 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164160</link>
      <description>A manufacturer could maintain an appeal under section 62 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act against a clarification issued under section 94, even though it was not the original applicant, because the clarification directly bound assessing authorities and affected its tax position; the preliminary objection was overruled. Vicks tablets, Vicks balm and Vicks Vaporub were then held classifiable under entry 36 of the Third Schedule as drugs or medicines, applying the common parlance and commercial identity tests, and the fact that they were sold over the counter did not alter their medicinal character; they therefore attracted tax at 4 per cent rather than the residuary rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>