<?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>1992 (10) TMI 228 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103503</link>
    <description>Amounts forming part of the sale price cannot be excluded from taxable turnover merely because they are shown separately in invoices. For cement sales under the Central Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu sales tax law, freight was treated as part of the controlled sale price where it was embedded in the pricing structure, so deduction was unavailable. Packing charges were also treated as part of the sale price, and excise duty on packing materials followed the same treatment because it was not a separate deductible post-sale charge. Deduction was allowed only where the relevant statutory conditions for exclusion were strictly met, which was not the case on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 228 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103503</link>
      <description>Amounts forming part of the sale price cannot be excluded from taxable turnover merely because they are shown separately in invoices. For cement sales under the Central Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu sales tax law, freight was treated as part of the controlled sale price where it was embedded in the pricing structure, so deduction was unavailable. Packing charges were also treated as part of the sale price, and excise duty on packing materials followed the same treatment because it was not a separate deductible post-sale charge. Deduction was allowed only where the relevant statutory conditions for exclusion were strictly met, which was not the case on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>