<?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 (2) TMI 382 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157887</link>
    <description>Goods returned by the purchaser within the prescribed period were deductible from turnover where the sale price had been refunded or adjusted, because the statutory test focused on the substance of the transaction, not the label used in the distributorship agreement. A contractual description of the arrangement as a repurchase did not prevent the dealer from treating the goods as returned after an earlier sale, so long as the goods had been included in turnover and were in fact taken back within time. The Bombay HC held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under both the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and that the Tribunal erred in disallowing the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:47:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 382 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157887</link>
      <description>Goods returned by the purchaser within the prescribed period were deductible from turnover where the sale price had been refunded or adjusted, because the statutory test focused on the substance of the transaction, not the label used in the distributorship agreement. A contractual description of the arrangement as a repurchase did not prevent the dealer from treating the goods as returned after an earlier sale, so long as the goods had been included in turnover and were in fact taken back within time. The Bombay HC held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under both the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and that the Tribunal erred in disallowing the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>