<?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>2002 (4) TMI 903 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160808</link>
    <description>An all-inclusive contract price that already incorporated sales tax did not give the contractor an enforceable right to compel purchasers to issue declarations needed for a concessional sales tax rate. Because the contract contained no term permitting concessional taxation, the tax burden was treated as having been built into the full rate, and the concession was regarded as belonging to the purchasers rather than the contractor. The purchasers could not be forced to expose themselves to possible penalty or uncertainty over eligibility. On that footing, the contractor could not insist on the declarations or claim the concessional rate, as doing so would also create unjust enrichment against the agreed price basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:26:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 903 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160808</link>
      <description>An all-inclusive contract price that already incorporated sales tax did not give the contractor an enforceable right to compel purchasers to issue declarations needed for a concessional sales tax rate. Because the contract contained no term permitting concessional taxation, the tax burden was treated as having been built into the full rate, and the concession was regarded as belonging to the purchasers rather than the contractor. The purchasers could not be forced to expose themselves to possible penalty or uncertainty over eligibility. On that footing, the contractor could not insist on the declarations or claim the concessional rate, as doing so would also create unjust enrichment against the agreed price basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>