<?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>1995 (1) TMI 325 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157885</link>
    <description>Freight charges paid by the buyer did not form part of the sale price where the contract terms showed delivery was complete on handing the goods to the carrier, the goods then remained at the purchaser&#039;s risk, and freight at destination was borne by the purchaser with an allowance reflected in the invoice. The invoice form was not decisive; the true contractual terms controlled. The arrangement was therefore not treated as an f.o.r. destination sale so as to include freight in the consideration. The discussion also distinguished later cement cases because they depended on a statutory control order with overriding effect, which was absent here.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:40:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 325 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157885</link>
      <description>Freight charges paid by the buyer did not form part of the sale price where the contract terms showed delivery was complete on handing the goods to the carrier, the goods then remained at the purchaser&#039;s risk, and freight at destination was borne by the purchaser with an allowance reflected in the invoice. The invoice form was not decisive; the true contractual terms controlled. The arrangement was therefore not treated as an f.o.r. destination sale so as to include freight in the consideration. The discussion also distinguished later cement cases because they depended on a statutory control order with overriding effect, which was absent here.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>