<?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>1962 (11) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128707</link>
    <description>Sales tax collected by a registered dealer was not treated as part of turnover under section 2(k) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act on the facts found. The court held that amounts collected as sales tax are not automatically included in turnover; whether they form part of the sale price depends on the particular facts and circumstances. Earlier authority supported exclusion where the collection was made as tax and not as price, and the Supreme Court observations relied on did not create an invariable rule. On the pleadings and findings, the State failed to show that the collections formed part of the sale price, so the refund decree was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:17:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (11) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128707</link>
      <description>Sales tax collected by a registered dealer was not treated as part of turnover under section 2(k) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act on the facts found. The court held that amounts collected as sales tax are not automatically included in turnover; whether they form part of the sale price depends on the particular facts and circumstances. Earlier authority supported exclusion where the collection was made as tax and not as price, and the Supreme Court observations relied on did not create an invariable rule. On the pleadings and findings, the State failed to show that the collections formed part of the sale price, so the refund decree was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>