<?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>1994 (8) TMI 284 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158177</link>
    <description>Taxable turnover is confined to the consideration actually realised from the purchaser, so excise duty borne by the dealer cannot be added unless it was recovered from the buyer as part of the sale price; on that basis, the disputed amount was held unsustainable in turnover. The objection that the matter had attained finality was also rejected because the earlier appellate order had itself remitted the issue for further enquiry, leaving the controversy open and permitting the Tribunal to direct a proper investigation where the assessment record was inadequate. The remand order was therefore set aside and the addition relating to the disputed amount was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:12:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (8) TMI 284 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158177</link>
      <description>Taxable turnover is confined to the consideration actually realised from the purchaser, so excise duty borne by the dealer cannot be added unless it was recovered from the buyer as part of the sale price; on that basis, the disputed amount was held unsustainable in turnover. The objection that the matter had attained finality was also rejected because the earlier appellate order had itself remitted the issue for further enquiry, leaving the controversy open and permitting the Tribunal to direct a proper investigation where the assessment record was inadequate. The remand order was therefore set aside and the addition relating to the disputed amount was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>