<?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>1983 (1) TMI 232 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153630</link>
    <description>Separately charged transport charges for minerals carried from the pit-head to the purchaser&#039;s work site were deductible from taxable turnover under the amended sales tax scheme. The statute taxes taxable turnover after the deductions allowed from gross turnover, and the amendment reintroduced outward freight or delivery cost, when separately charged, as a deductible item. Because the freight was separately billed and related to delivery to the purchaser&#039;s site, it did not form part of the sale price and could not be included in assessable turnover. Earlier Supreme Court authorities were distinguished because they concerned freight incurred before sale or regimes where freight had a different statutory character.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:21:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 232 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153630</link>
      <description>Separately charged transport charges for minerals carried from the pit-head to the purchaser&#039;s work site were deductible from taxable turnover under the amended sales tax scheme. The statute taxes taxable turnover after the deductions allowed from gross turnover, and the amendment reintroduced outward freight or delivery cost, when separately charged, as a deductible item. Because the freight was separately billed and related to delivery to the purchaser&#039;s site, it did not form part of the sale price and could not be included in assessable turnover. Earlier Supreme Court authorities were distinguished because they concerned freight incurred before sale or regimes where freight had a different statutory character.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>