<?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 (9) TMI 1536 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348779</link>
    <description>Blood bank equipment specially designed for collection, storage, processing, separation and thawing of blood was held to fall within the specific entry for &quot;Medical Equipments, Devices and Implants&quot; under Entry 61 of the III Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Applying the common parlance and trade parlance tests, the Court treated blood collection monitors, storage refrigerators, deep freezers, platelet agitators, plasma expressers and cryobaths as integrally connected with diagnosis and treatment in hospitals and blood banks. The distinction sought to be drawn between blood bank equipment and medical equipment was rejected as artificial, and the residuary entry was held inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1536 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348779</link>
      <description>Blood bank equipment specially designed for collection, storage, processing, separation and thawing of blood was held to fall within the specific entry for &quot;Medical Equipments, Devices and Implants&quot; under Entry 61 of the III Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Applying the common parlance and trade parlance tests, the Court treated blood collection monitors, storage refrigerators, deep freezers, platelet agitators, plasma expressers and cryobaths as integrally connected with diagnosis and treatment in hospitals and blood banks. The distinction sought to be drawn between blood bank equipment and medical equipment was rejected as artificial, and the residuary entry was held inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>