<?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>1991 (11) TMI 225 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156543</link>
    <description>Warranty charges for second and subsequent years were analysed against the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act definition of sale price. Optional, separately charged warranty amounts were treated as distinct from the price of goods and closer to a charge for future contingency, but composite pricing required factual scrutiny. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh examination on whether such charges formed part of the sale price. Penalty under the Act was found unwarranted because the dispute was one of interpretation and the relevant entries were recorded in the books of account; the deletion of penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:14:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (11) TMI 225 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156543</link>
      <description>Warranty charges for second and subsequent years were analysed against the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act definition of sale price. Optional, separately charged warranty amounts were treated as distinct from the price of goods and closer to a charge for future contingency, but composite pricing required factual scrutiny. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh examination on whether such charges formed part of the sale price. Penalty under the Act was found unwarranted because the dispute was one of interpretation and the relevant entries were recorded in the books of account; the deletion of penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>