<?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>1973 (7) TMI 101 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150647</link>
    <description>Freight and delivery charges separately fixed under the revised limestone supply agreement and separately shown in invoices were deductible from taxable turnover under rule 6(f)(i), because the goods&#039; price was fixed at extraction and transport was contractually distinct. The deduction depended on the contractual terms and invoice presentation, notwithstanding earlier all-inclusive billing. Enhanced royalty paid for limestone extraction remained includible in taxable turnover because it formed part of the goods&#039; cost and sale price, not a separately recoverable post-sale charge. The freight deduction was allowed, while the royalty deduction was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 17:26:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (7) TMI 101 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150647</link>
      <description>Freight and delivery charges separately fixed under the revised limestone supply agreement and separately shown in invoices were deductible from taxable turnover under rule 6(f)(i), because the goods&#039; price was fixed at extraction and transport was contractually distinct. The deduction depended on the contractual terms and invoice presentation, notwithstanding earlier all-inclusive billing. Enhanced royalty paid for limestone extraction remained includible in taxable turnover because it formed part of the goods&#039; cost and sale price, not a separately recoverable post-sale charge. The freight deduction was allowed, while the royalty deduction was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>