<?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>1969 (11) TMI 89 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190929</link>
    <description>Printed material prepared by a printer on paper supplied by him is not treated as a &quot;paper product&quot; for sales tax purposes merely because printing has been done on it. The Kerala High Court applied the ordinary commercial or common parlance test to the entry &quot;paper&quot; in Schedule I, holding that printing alone does not convert paper into a different commodity or into a product made out of paper. On that reasoning, books, pamphlets, records and similar printed matter are not ordinarily understood as paper products unless the finished article is commercially regarded as such. The disputed turnover was therefore outside item 42.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:38:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (11) TMI 89 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190929</link>
      <description>Printed material prepared by a printer on paper supplied by him is not treated as a &quot;paper product&quot; for sales tax purposes merely because printing has been done on it. The Kerala High Court applied the ordinary commercial or common parlance test to the entry &quot;paper&quot; in Schedule I, holding that printing alone does not convert paper into a different commodity or into a product made out of paper. On that reasoning, books, pamphlets, records and similar printed matter are not ordinarily understood as paper products unless the finished article is commercially regarded as such. The disputed turnover was therefore outside item 42.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>