<?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>2014 (2) TMI 913 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244319</link>
    <description>Packing and forwarding charges, transport charges, loading and unloading charges were held not to form part of taxable turnover where the sale invoice and subsequent agreement separately showed the cargo price and incidental charges, and the earlier invoices had been cancelled and disclosed as such. The Act and rules permitted deduction of separately specified freight and delivery-related charges, so the disputed amounts were excluded from invoice price for tax purposes. Penalty for excess tax collection was also treated as inapplicable where the amount collected had been remitted to the State, and the absence of a specific unjust-enrichment provision meant the penalty provision could not be invoked on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 913 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244319</link>
      <description>Packing and forwarding charges, transport charges, loading and unloading charges were held not to form part of taxable turnover where the sale invoice and subsequent agreement separately showed the cargo price and incidental charges, and the earlier invoices had been cancelled and disclosed as such. The Act and rules permitted deduction of separately specified freight and delivery-related charges, so the disputed amounts were excluded from invoice price for tax purposes. Penalty for excess tax collection was also treated as inapplicable where the amount collected had been remitted to the State, and the absence of a specific unjust-enrichment provision meant the penalty provision could not be invoked on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>