<?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>1996 (3) TMI 485 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158282</link>
    <description>Amounts received by a refinery from the pool account under a government oil pricing scheme were not part of the sale price or taxable turnover for sales tax purposes. The statutory definitions covered only the money consideration paid by the purchaser for taxable goods, while the pool account payment operated as an adjustment to compensate the refinery for loss caused by controlled pricing and a retention price higher than the fixed sale price. Applying the distinction between sale consideration and compensatory receipt, the court held that such payment could not be included in turnover, and the assessment and revisional orders taxing that amount were without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:00:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=332841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 485 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158282</link>
      <description>Amounts received by a refinery from the pool account under a government oil pricing scheme were not part of the sale price or taxable turnover for sales tax purposes. The statutory definitions covered only the money consideration paid by the purchaser for taxable goods, while the pool account payment operated as an adjustment to compensate the refinery for loss caused by controlled pricing and a retention price higher than the fixed sale price. Applying the distinction between sale consideration and compensatory receipt, the court held that such payment could not be included in turnover, and the assessment and revisional orders taxing that amount were without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>