Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Inclusion of Transport Rebate in Taxable Turnover Upheld, Penalty Imposed</h1> <h3>Hyderabad Industries Limited Versus Commercial Tax Officer and others</h3> Hyderabad Industries Limited Versus Commercial Tax Officer and others - [2004] 136 STC 364 (Mad) Issues Involved:1. Inclusion of transport rebate or freight charges in the taxable turnover.2. Validity of the penalty imposed on the assessee.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Inclusion of Transport Rebate or Freight Charges in the Taxable Turnover:The petitioner, a public limited company, contended that transport rebate or freight charges should not be included in the taxable turnover. The petitioner argued that the sale of products was an ex-factory/ex-depot sale, with all risk and responsibility ceasing on delivery to the carrier. The price was the f.o.r. price, and if purchasers arranged their own transport, the price was reduced by the transportation cost. The petitioner maintained a scale of transport charges based on distance and tonnage, which was deducted from the f.o.r. price to arrive at the ex-factory sale price.The assessing authority determined the taxable turnover by disallowing the transport rebate, which led to a difference in the taxable turnover. The petitioner's contention was that the rebate was not part of the sale price and was shown separately. However, the assessing authority included the rebate in the taxable turnover and imposed a penalty.The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, excluding the transport rebate from the taxable turnover. However, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal reversed this decision, holding that the transport rebate should be included in the taxable turnover under sections 2(q) and 2(p) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.The petitioner argued that the agreement with stockists and the terms in the invoices and price list supported the exclusion of freight charges from the taxable turnover. The petitioner cited various Supreme Court rulings, including Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that the price received by the company was the invoice amount less the freight, and the form of the invoice was not determinative of the contract.The Revenue countered by citing the Supreme Court ruling in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which required that to claim the exclusion of freight charges, they must be specified and charged separately and not included in the price of the goods sold. The court noted that the freight charges were included in the sale price in the invoice, and the conditions for exclusion were not met.The court concluded that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for excluding freight charges from the taxable turnover. The agreed price was inclusive of freight, subject to a fixed transport rebate, making the actual freight charges irrelevant to the customer. Therefore, the transport rebate could not be excluded from the taxable turnover.2. Validity of the Penalty Imposed on the Assessee:The assessing authority imposed a penalty on the petitioner for the difference in the taxable turnover due to the disallowed transport rebate. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal initially deleted the penalty, but the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal reinstated it, holding that the transport rebate should be included in the taxable turnover.The court upheld the penalty, noting that the petitioner did not meet the conditions for excluding the freight charges from the taxable turnover. The penalty was justified as the petitioner's claim for exclusion of the transport rebate was not in accordance with the legal provisions.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the inclusion of transport rebate in the taxable turnover and the imposition of the penalty. The court emphasized that the legal conditions for excluding freight charges were not met by the petitioner, and the agreed price was inclusive of freight charges, making the transport rebate part of the taxable turnover.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found