<?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>2003 (6) TMI 446 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161263</link>
    <description>Contractual charges for storage, special services, distribution and freight formed part of the purchase price because the agreement made them compulsory and they were payable for pre-delivery services and facilities. On that basis, the difference between purchase price and resale price remained below the statutory forty per cent threshold, so the deeming rule treating the resale as the first point of sale was not attracted. The revisional authority under section 36(1) could not substitute an incorrect view of purchase price, since suo motu revision is available only where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:43:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 446 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161263</link>
      <description>Contractual charges for storage, special services, distribution and freight formed part of the purchase price because the agreement made them compulsory and they were payable for pre-delivery services and facilities. On that basis, the difference between purchase price and resale price remained below the statutory forty per cent threshold, so the deeming rule treating the resale as the first point of sale was not attracted. The revisional authority under section 36(1) could not substitute an incorrect view of purchase price, since suo motu revision is available only where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>