<?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 (10) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332995</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;chemicals of all kinds&quot; was held wide enough to include enzyme, applying dictionary meanings, expert material and the common parlance test. The Revenue failed to show that enzyme, even if regarded as a protein, was excluded from the specific chemical entry, so the residuary category could not be used. Enzyme was therefore classified under the chemical entry in Notification No. 1084 dated 25.02.2003 and treated as taxable at 4%.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332995</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;chemicals of all kinds&quot; was held wide enough to include enzyme, applying dictionary meanings, expert material and the common parlance test. The Revenue failed to show that enzyme, even if regarded as a protein, was excluded from the specific chemical entry, so the residuary category could not be used. Enzyme was therefore classified under the chemical entry in Notification No. 1084 dated 25.02.2003 and treated as taxable at 4%.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>