<?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>1951 (11) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127157</link>
    <description>Separate conveyance charges shown in the bills were excludible from the sale price under Section 2(h)(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act because freight or delivery charges separately charged must be deducted in computing turnover. The court accepted that the bills distinguished brick price from carting charges, and no prescribed billing form required a different presentation, so deduction was available. However, where some bills appeared to embed additional brick price within the conveyance charges, and tax had already been recovered on those amounts, the correct deductible conveyance component had to be verified on facts. The assessment was therefore modified and the matter remitted for factual inquiry into the proper exclusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (11) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127157</link>
      <description>Separate conveyance charges shown in the bills were excludible from the sale price under Section 2(h)(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act because freight or delivery charges separately charged must be deducted in computing turnover. The court accepted that the bills distinguished brick price from carting charges, and no prescribed billing form required a different presentation, so deduction was available. However, where some bills appeared to embed additional brick price within the conveyance charges, and tax had already been recovered on those amounts, the correct deductible conveyance component had to be verified on facts. The assessment was therefore modified and the matter remitted for factual inquiry into the proper exclusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>