<?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>1966 (3) TMI 72 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144100</link>
    <description>Packing charges separately specified and charged in connection with cement supplied under the controlled sales scheme were held deductible from taxable turnover under rule 6(5)(f)(ii). The Court treated the packing done at the Corporation&#039;s instance as a service rendered in the course of the consumer sale, and rejected the narrower view that the dealer had to perform the service personally. On that construction of the Cement Control Order and the sales tax rule, disallowance of the deduction was incorrect and the assessment was to be modified by excluding the packing charges, with consequential refund if tax had been paid on that amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:26:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 72 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144100</link>
      <description>Packing charges separately specified and charged in connection with cement supplied under the controlled sales scheme were held deductible from taxable turnover under rule 6(5)(f)(ii). The Court treated the packing done at the Corporation&#039;s instance as a service rendered in the course of the consumer sale, and rejected the narrower view that the dealer had to perform the service personally. On that construction of the Cement Control Order and the sales tax rule, disallowance of the deduction was incorrect and the assessment was to be modified by excluding the packing charges, with consequential refund if tax had been paid on that amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>