<?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 (11) TMI 264 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157328</link>
    <description>The Cement Control Order, 1967 was read as governing freight only for the cheapest mode of transport, ordinarily rail, because the scheme contemplates a free-on-rail price and reimbursement of freight incurred for that mode. Differential freight for cement despatched by lorry was not, by that order alone, required to be included in taxable turnover. Whether the extra lorry freight formed part of the sale consideration depended on the contract and the factual nature of the collection, including whether it was a post-sale charge. The earlier rejection was based on an overly broad reading of Supreme Court authority, and the issue required fresh factual examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:24:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 264 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157328</link>
      <description>The Cement Control Order, 1967 was read as governing freight only for the cheapest mode of transport, ordinarily rail, because the scheme contemplates a free-on-rail price and reimbursement of freight incurred for that mode. Differential freight for cement despatched by lorry was not, by that order alone, required to be included in taxable turnover. Whether the extra lorry freight formed part of the sale consideration depended on the contract and the factual nature of the collection, including whether it was a post-sale charge. The earlier rejection was based on an overly broad reading of Supreme Court authority, and the issue required fresh factual examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>