<?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>2010 (7) TMI 904 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164908</link>
    <description>Homoeo globules made from pharmaceutical grade sugar were not treated as &quot;sugar manufactured or made in India&quot; under Sl. No. 35A of Schedule A to the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The taxing entry was construed according to common and commercial parlance, meaning the product had to be understood as buyers and dealers in the market would understand it. Because the goods were marketed and used as a vehicle for homoeopathic medicine, not as ordinary sugar or a sweetening material, they were regarded as a distinct commercial commodity. The exemption was denied and the product remained taxable as an unspecified item.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2014 20:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 904 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164908</link>
      <description>Homoeo globules made from pharmaceutical grade sugar were not treated as &quot;sugar manufactured or made in India&quot; under Sl. No. 35A of Schedule A to the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The taxing entry was construed according to common and commercial parlance, meaning the product had to be understood as buyers and dealers in the market would understand it. Because the goods were marketed and used as a vehicle for homoeopathic medicine, not as ordinary sugar or a sweetening material, they were regarded as a distinct commercial commodity. The exemption was denied and the product remained taxable as an unspecified item.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>