https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262719 Pickles marketed under a brand name that was not specifically registered for pickles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were held not to qualify for the concessional 4% rate under entry 49 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; general registration of the brand for other goods was insufficient. The Court treated pickles as a distinct commodity in the statutory scheme and upheld the higher-rate treatment. It also held that a clarification issued under section 94 was not liable to be invalidated merely because the applicant's objections were not discussed or because a third party complained of lack of hearing, so the challenge based on want of reasons and natural justice failed. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262719 Pickles marketed under a brand name that was not specifically registered for pickles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were held not to qualify for the concessional 4% rate under entry 49 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; general registration of the brand for other goods was insufficient. The Court treated pickles as a distinct commodity in the statutory scheme and upheld the higher-rate treatment. It also held that a clarification issued under section 94 was not liable to be invalidated merely because the applicant's objections were not discussed or because a third party complained of lack of hearing, so the challenge based on want of reasons and natural justice failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262719