<?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 (9) TMI 348 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158539</link>
    <description>Under the Assam one-point sales tax system, tax was levied and collected only at the first sale, so amounts later recovered by retailers or intermediary dealers from consumers represented reimbursement of tax already borne at the first point and formed part of the sale price. The price control orders allowed local taxes to be included in the retail price structure for scheduled formulations, while non-scheduled formulations were required to have a maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes. Because the tax had already been realised from the first seller, there was no legal basis to prohibit recovery of that reimbursed component or to treat it as a further tax liability on later sellers. The notification and circular were therefore invalid to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:12:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 348 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158539</link>
      <description>Under the Assam one-point sales tax system, tax was levied and collected only at the first sale, so amounts later recovered by retailers or intermediary dealers from consumers represented reimbursement of tax already borne at the first point and formed part of the sale price. The price control orders allowed local taxes to be included in the retail price structure for scheduled formulations, while non-scheduled formulations were required to have a maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes. Because the tax had already been realised from the first seller, there was no legal basis to prohibit recovery of that reimbursed component or to treat it as a further tax liability on later sellers. The notification and circular were therefore invalid to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>