<?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 499 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158419</link>
    <description>Inspection charges recovered from the purchaser were held not to form part of the sale price where the contract kept the goods&#039; sale consideration unchanged and treated inspection as an incidental contractual burden borne ultimately by the purchaser, so the charges were not includible in taxable turnover. The note also records that where appellate authorities concurrently found as a fact that solvent cement and P.V.C. goods were destroyed in a flood and were not sold, no question of law arose in revision absent any legal infirmity. The revision therefore failed on both the valuation issue and the factual issue concerning the destroyed goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:50:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 499 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158419</link>
      <description>Inspection charges recovered from the purchaser were held not to form part of the sale price where the contract kept the goods&#039; sale consideration unchanged and treated inspection as an incidental contractual burden borne ultimately by the purchaser, so the charges were not includible in taxable turnover. The note also records that where appellate authorities concurrently found as a fact that solvent cement and P.V.C. goods were destroyed in a flood and were not sold, no question of law arose in revision absent any legal infirmity. The revision therefore failed on both the valuation issue and the factual issue concerning the destroyed goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>