<?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>1975 (3) TMI 110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150794</link>
    <description>Husk retained by millers as payment for hulling and decortication charges did not constitute a sale, because the arrangement showed that only the kernel was delivered to the petitioners and the husk was retained in lieu of service charges. On those facts, the value of the husk could not form part of taxable turnover, and the Tribunal&#039;s view to the contrary was unsustainable. The corresponding turnover was therefore directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 17:33:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150794</link>
      <description>Husk retained by millers as payment for hulling and decortication charges did not constitute a sale, because the arrangement showed that only the kernel was delivered to the petitioners and the husk was retained in lieu of service charges. On those facts, the value of the husk could not form part of taxable turnover, and the Tribunal&#039;s view to the contrary was unsustainable. The corresponding turnover was therefore directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>