<?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 (11) TMI 247 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105603</link>
    <description>Transport charges and transport subsidy paid in connection with the purchase of sugarcane were treated as part of the purchase consideration, not as separate post-sale expenditure. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 fixed only a statutory minimum price and did not exclude an agreed higher price or contractual payments linked to delivery. Where the purchase arrangement incorporated a directive requiring the buyer to bear transport subsidy, those amounts were directly connected with supply and completion of the sale. On that basis, the transport-related payments were includible in taxable turnover for purchase tax, and the minimum price contention was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 247 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105603</link>
      <description>Transport charges and transport subsidy paid in connection with the purchase of sugarcane were treated as part of the purchase consideration, not as separate post-sale expenditure. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 fixed only a statutory minimum price and did not exclude an agreed higher price or contractual payments linked to delivery. Where the purchase arrangement incorporated a directive requiring the buyer to bear transport subsidy, those amounts were directly connected with supply and completion of the sale. On that basis, the transport-related payments were includible in taxable turnover for purchase tax, and the minimum price contention was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>