<?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>2007 (4) TMI 357 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105889</link>
    <description>Packing material and containers form part of taxable turnover only where an express or implied sale of the bottles is proved on the facts, and the Revenue bears the burden of establishing that the charges recovered are in substance sale consideration rather than incidental packing or job-work charges. The Court found no clear factual determination on whether the amounts described as bottling charges were actually the price of bottles, so the matter required reconsideration. A later insertion of section 3AB was held to operate prospectively and not as a clarificatory amendment for the earlier assessment year. The impugned judgment could not stand and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 May 2016 15:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 357 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105889</link>
      <description>Packing material and containers form part of taxable turnover only where an express or implied sale of the bottles is proved on the facts, and the Revenue bears the burden of establishing that the charges recovered are in substance sale consideration rather than incidental packing or job-work charges. The Court found no clear factual determination on whether the amounts described as bottling charges were actually the price of bottles, so the matter required reconsideration. A later insertion of section 3AB was held to operate prospectively and not as a clarificatory amendment for the earlier assessment year. The impugned judgment could not stand and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>