<?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>2017 (5) TMI 655 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342917</link>
    <description>Sun-glasses were held not to be &quot;medical devices&quot; for classification under Entry 28A(ii) of Schedule II to the Gujarat VAT Act because the governing notifications, as amended over time, confined the entry to medical equipment, devices and implants and later expressly excluded non-corrective goggles, sun-glasses and sun-glass spectacles. The earlier 2006 notification covering spectacles, correctives and protectives was superseded by the 2008 notification, and the 2013 amendment removed any residual doubt. Protective use alone could not control tax classification where the statutory notification scheme and legislative intent pointed to exclusion. The classification adopted by the Tribunal was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 655 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342917</link>
      <description>Sun-glasses were held not to be &quot;medical devices&quot; for classification under Entry 28A(ii) of Schedule II to the Gujarat VAT Act because the governing notifications, as amended over time, confined the entry to medical equipment, devices and implants and later expressly excluded non-corrective goggles, sun-glasses and sun-glass spectacles. The earlier 2006 notification covering spectacles, correctives and protectives was superseded by the 2008 notification, and the 2013 amendment removed any residual doubt. Protective use alone could not control tax classification where the statutory notification scheme and legislative intent pointed to exclusion. The classification adopted by the Tribunal was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>