<?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>2016 (2) TMI 815 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272110</link>
    <description>A commodity specifically answering the description of an aerated branded soft drink must be classified under that taxing entry on common parlance or commercial parlance principles, even where the schedule does not adopt HSN codes. Earlier treatment under excise or other fiscal regimes is irrelevant once the product squarely fits the specific entry. The residuary entry applies only where the product is not covered elsewhere, so a product already brought within the specific taxing entry cannot be shifted to the residuary category. The classification of the product as an aerated branded soft drink was upheld and the higher-rate tax consequence sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 815 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272110</link>
      <description>A commodity specifically answering the description of an aerated branded soft drink must be classified under that taxing entry on common parlance or commercial parlance principles, even where the schedule does not adopt HSN codes. Earlier treatment under excise or other fiscal regimes is irrelevant once the product squarely fits the specific entry. The residuary entry applies only where the product is not covered elsewhere, so a product already brought within the specific taxing entry cannot be shifted to the residuary category. The classification of the product as an aerated branded soft drink was upheld and the higher-rate tax consequence sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>