<?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>1991 (4) TMI 363 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103461</link>
    <description>Rule 15(3) of the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Rules, 1958 was examined for alleged inconsistency with the Act and the Constitution in relation to refund of sales tax on motor spirit lost by evaporation or leakage after purchase. The provision applied only to loss occurring while the motor spirit remained in the seller&#039;s storage installation, with refund available to the selling trader. Because the petitioners had already acquired ownership and were taxed only at the first sale stage, and their later sales were treated as resales not subject to tax, the loss after purchase did not attract further tax. The rule was therefore held non-discriminatory, and no refund was due.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 363 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103461</link>
      <description>Rule 15(3) of the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Rules, 1958 was examined for alleged inconsistency with the Act and the Constitution in relation to refund of sales tax on motor spirit lost by evaporation or leakage after purchase. The provision applied only to loss occurring while the motor spirit remained in the seller&#039;s storage installation, with refund available to the selling trader. Because the petitioners had already acquired ownership and were taxed only at the first sale stage, and their later sales were treated as resales not subject to tax, the loss after purchase did not attract further tax. The rule was therefore held non-discriminatory, and no refund was due.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>