<?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>1981 (8) TMI 212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153611</link>
    <description>Transport charges separately shown in an invoice are not deductible from taxable turnover unless the assessee proves a valid novation of the original contract. Novation requires the existing bargain to be annulled and replaced by a fresh, legally enforceable contract; a mere committee minute allowing separate billing does not satisfy the formal requirements for a new contract under the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905. As no valid novation was established, the original stipulation that supply was to be made at the harbour site continued to govern, and the transport charges remained part of the seller&#039;s pre-sale expenditure. The claim to exclude those charges under rule 6(c)(i) therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:03:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153611</link>
      <description>Transport charges separately shown in an invoice are not deductible from taxable turnover unless the assessee proves a valid novation of the original contract. Novation requires the existing bargain to be annulled and replaced by a fresh, legally enforceable contract; a mere committee minute allowing separate billing does not satisfy the formal requirements for a new contract under the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905. As no valid novation was established, the original stipulation that supply was to be made at the harbour site continued to govern, and the transport charges remained part of the seller&#039;s pre-sale expenditure. The claim to exclude those charges under rule 6(c)(i) therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>