<?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 (6) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150703</link>
    <description>Foreign liquor that had already borne sales tax and gallonage fee under the Madras Prohibition Act was held not to be exempt from tax under section 8 read with item 3 of Schedule III of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because prior levy under the Prohibition Act did not take the sales outside the charging provisions. The gallonage fee was treated as part of the seller&#039;s cost and therefore includible in taxable turnover, while sales tax collected under section 21-A was excluded because the statute clearly distinguished that tax from the sale price. The challenge succeeded only to that limited extent; the remaining assessments were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:01:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (6) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150703</link>
      <description>Foreign liquor that had already borne sales tax and gallonage fee under the Madras Prohibition Act was held not to be exempt from tax under section 8 read with item 3 of Schedule III of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because prior levy under the Prohibition Act did not take the sales outside the charging provisions. The gallonage fee was treated as part of the seller&#039;s cost and therefore includible in taxable turnover, while sales tax collected under section 21-A was excluded because the statute clearly distinguished that tax from the sale price. The challenge succeeded only to that limited extent; the remaining assessments were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>