<?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>2021 (2) TMI 958 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404466</link>
    <description>Classification of brass sanitary fittings under the KVAT schedule turned on the interaction between HSN-linked entries and the taxing notification. The text explains that sanitaryware of copper fell under HSN 7418, while brass articles were dealt with separately, and that brass sanitary fittings could not be forced into the lower-rate sanitaryware entry merely by common parlance. It further states that Entry 3(2) for brass articles did not extend to every brass product where other entries specifically covered taps, cocks, valves, fittings and similar appliances. On that basis, the lower-rate claim was rejected and the higher-rate levy was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 958 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404466</link>
      <description>Classification of brass sanitary fittings under the KVAT schedule turned on the interaction between HSN-linked entries and the taxing notification. The text explains that sanitaryware of copper fell under HSN 7418, while brass articles were dealt with separately, and that brass sanitary fittings could not be forced into the lower-rate sanitaryware entry merely by common parlance. It further states that Entry 3(2) for brass articles did not extend to every brass product where other entries specifically covered taps, cocks, valves, fittings and similar appliances. On that basis, the lower-rate claim was rejected and the higher-rate levy was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>