Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

        -

        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>VAT payable on postage costs in supply of goods decision</h1> <h3>Customs and Excise Commissioners Versus Plantiflor Ltd</h3> Customs and Excise Commissioners Versus Plantiflor Ltd - [2005] 1 VST 36 (HL) Issues Involved:1. Whether VAT was chargeable on the postage costs incurred by Plantiflor Ltd.2. Whether Plantiflor acted as an agent for its customers in relation to the postage costs.3. Whether the postage costs were part of the consideration for the supply of goods by Plantiflor to its customers.4. The interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive (77/338/EEC) and its application to the UK VAT Act 1994.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. VAT Chargeability on Postage Costs:The central issue was whether VAT was chargeable on the postage costs incurred by Plantiflor Ltd. The commissioners argued that VAT was chargeable on the postage, while Plantiflor contended it was not. The House of Lords concluded that VAT was indeed payable on the postage costs. The judgment emphasized that the postage costs were part of the overall consideration paid by the customer to Plantiflor for the supply of delivered goods.2. Agency Relationship Between Plantiflor and Customers:Plantiflor argued that it acted as an agent for its customers in relation to the postage costs, meaning that the postage was a disbursement and not part of the consideration for the supply. However, the House of Lords found that Plantiflor did not act as an agent for its customers. The contractual terms between Plantiflor and Parcelforce indicated that Plantiflor was acting as a principal and not as an agent. Parcelforce charged Plantiflor for the delivery services, and Plantiflor was liable to pay these charges, not the customers.3. Consideration for the Supply of Goods:The judgment analyzed whether the postage costs were part of the consideration for the supply of goods by Plantiflor to its customers. It was determined that the postage costs were indeed part of the consideration. The customer paid a total sum to Plantiflor, which included the cost of postage. This total sum was for the supply of delivered goods, making the postage costs part of the taxable amount.4. Interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive and UK VAT Act 1994:The judgment referenced the Sixth Council Directive (77/338/EEC) and the UK VAT Act 1994 to determine the taxable amount. Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Directive states that the taxable amount includes 'everything which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser.' Additionally, Article 11(A)(2) includes 'incidental expenses such as commission, packing, transport and insurance costs charged by the supplier to the purchaser.' The House of Lords concluded that the postage costs fell within these provisions and were therefore subject to VAT.Separate Judgments:Lord Slynn of Hadley:Lord Slynn emphasized that Plantiflor's contract with its customers included the delivery of goods, making the postage costs part of the consideration for the supply. He concluded that VAT was payable on the postage costs.Lord Mackay of Clashfern:Lord Mackay agreed with the conclusion that the postage costs were part of the consideration for the supply of goods. He highlighted that the arrangements between Plantiflor and Parcelforce did not constitute an agency relationship, and the customer paid Plantiflor for the delivery services.Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough:Lord Hobhouse concurred with the reasoning and conclusion of Lord Slynn and Lord Millett, stating that VAT was chargeable on the postage costs.Lord Millett:Lord Millett provided a detailed analysis of the contractual relationships and the application of the Sixth Directive. He concluded that the postage costs were part of the consideration for the supply of goods and were subject to VAT.Lord Scott of Foscote:Lord Scott agreed with the opinions of Lord Slynn and Lord Millett, supporting the conclusion that VAT was chargeable on the postage costs.Conclusion:The House of Lords allowed the appeal, concluding that VAT was payable on the postage costs incurred by Plantiflor Ltd. The judgment clarified that the postage costs were part of the consideration for the supply of delivered goods and did not constitute a disbursement or an agency relationship. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive and the UK VAT Act 1994. The appeal was allowed with costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found