<?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>2001 (5) TMI 926 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160547</link>
    <description>A surcharge collected from consumers could not be excluded from the resale price when applying the deeming rule that treats a resale as the first sale once the resale price exceeds the prescribed margin over purchase price. The court held that the actual resale price had to be used, so the surcharge remained part of the computation and the resale crossed the statutory threshold. It further held that the surcharge formed part of the statutory sale price because the definition covered valuable consideration and related sums, including taxes and duties payable before delivery. The levy on the resale was therefore not impermissible double taxation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:34:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 926 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160547</link>
      <description>A surcharge collected from consumers could not be excluded from the resale price when applying the deeming rule that treats a resale as the first sale once the resale price exceeds the prescribed margin over purchase price. The court held that the actual resale price had to be used, so the surcharge remained part of the computation and the resale crossed the statutory threshold. It further held that the surcharge formed part of the statutory sale price because the definition covered valuable consideration and related sums, including taxes and duties payable before delivery. The levy on the resale was therefore not impermissible double taxation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>