<?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>2004 (6) TMI 601 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161951</link>
    <description>Harvesting and transportation charges paid directly to third parties are not automatically part of sugarcane purchase price for taxable turnover. The decisive test is whether, under the contract and surrounding facts, those payments formed part of the consideration flowing to the grower or were the purchaser&#039;s own post-purchase expenditure after an ex-field transaction. The Court held that the lower authorities erred by treating factory delivery and weighment as conclusive indicators that all such expenses were includible. The Tribunal&#039;s order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination on the correct factual and legal basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:09:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 601 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161951</link>
      <description>Harvesting and transportation charges paid directly to third parties are not automatically part of sugarcane purchase price for taxable turnover. The decisive test is whether, under the contract and surrounding facts, those payments formed part of the consideration flowing to the grower or were the purchaser&#039;s own post-purchase expenditure after an ex-field transaction. The Court held that the lower authorities erred by treating factory delivery and weighment as conclusive indicators that all such expenses were includible. The Tribunal&#039;s order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination on the correct factual and legal basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>