<?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>1971 (4) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150178</link>
    <description>Unrefunded deposits taken for liquor and beer containers were analysed as security for return of the containers, not as price for a sale. For wooden casks, the purchaser could return the casks and, if retained beyond the permitted period, was liable only to pay hire, which was inconsistent with a conditional sale and showed the casks remained the supplier&#039;s property. The country liquor bottle arrangement similarly allowed refund on return of bottles in sound condition, and the beer bottle arrangement was treated on the same factual basis. The deposits therefore represented security against loss of containers, and the unrefunded amounts could not be treated as turnover from sale; the transactions were bailments, not sales.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 17:18:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150178</link>
      <description>Unrefunded deposits taken for liquor and beer containers were analysed as security for return of the containers, not as price for a sale. For wooden casks, the purchaser could return the casks and, if retained beyond the permitted period, was liable only to pay hire, which was inconsistent with a conditional sale and showed the casks remained the supplier&#039;s property. The country liquor bottle arrangement similarly allowed refund on return of bottles in sound condition, and the beer bottle arrangement was treated on the same factual basis. The deposits therefore represented security against loss of containers, and the unrefunded amounts could not be treated as turnover from sale; the transactions were bailments, not sales.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>