<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1004 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369038</link>
    <description>An unchallenged determination order under the Gujarat VAT framework binds the Department on the taxability and classification of the same product, and a later assessing officer cannot depart from that finding without appeal or revision. The product had already been determined to fall under Entry 34 of Schedule I as mehendi, so recourse to the residuary entry was impermissible merely because the product was marketed in different colours or described as hair dye or hair tonic. A different classification for the manufacturer while the distributor was taxed differently on the same product would create inconsistent treatment. The assessment order was quashed and the assessee&#039;s challenge succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1004 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369038</link>
      <description>An unchallenged determination order under the Gujarat VAT framework binds the Department on the taxability and classification of the same product, and a later assessing officer cannot depart from that finding without appeal or revision. The product had already been determined to fall under Entry 34 of Schedule I as mehendi, so recourse to the residuary entry was impermissible merely because the product was marketed in different colours or described as hair dye or hair tonic. A different classification for the manufacturer while the distributor was taxed differently on the same product would create inconsistent treatment. The assessment order was quashed and the assessee&#039;s challenge succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>