<?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>1992 (8) TMI 247 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156542</link>
    <description>Freight and delivery charges were deductible from taxable turnover only if the dealer proved that outward freight was separately charged under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The court noted that sale price included sums charged for work done in respect of goods, while deduction was available only for separately charged outward freight or delivery cost. On the record, the agreement was initially composite and the later correspondence showed bifurcation of several items, but not a distinct transport charge alone. The amount was treated as transport and other charges together, so the dealer failed to establish entitlement to deduction and the entire receipt remained taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:12:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 247 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156542</link>
      <description>Freight and delivery charges were deductible from taxable turnover only if the dealer proved that outward freight was separately charged under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The court noted that sale price included sums charged for work done in respect of goods, while deduction was available only for separately charged outward freight or delivery cost. On the record, the agreement was initially composite and the later correspondence showed bifurcation of several items, but not a distinct transport charge alone. The amount was treated as transport and other charges together, so the dealer failed to establish entitlement to deduction and the entire receipt remained taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>