<?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>2005 (1) TMI 383 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105428</link>
    <description>For purchase tax under section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, transportation charges and an agent&#039;s commission were part of the consideration paid for procuring raw materials and therefore formed part of turnover. The dealer bought goods through agents who arranged procurement and delivery to the factory, and the composite payment represented the purchase price on the admitted facts. Because the transport and commission amounts were necessary to complete the same purchase transaction, they were not separable post-purchase expenses. The authorities and High Court erred in excluding those components, and the amounts were liable to tax as turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 383 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105428</link>
      <description>For purchase tax under section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, transportation charges and an agent&#039;s commission were part of the consideration paid for procuring raw materials and therefore formed part of turnover. The dealer bought goods through agents who arranged procurement and delivery to the factory, and the composite payment represented the purchase price on the admitted facts. Because the transport and commission amounts were necessary to complete the same purchase transaction, they were not separable post-purchase expenses. The authorities and High Court erred in excluding those components, and the amounts were liable to tax as turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>