<?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>2005 (12) TMI 543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162833</link>
    <description>Amounts charged for bottles were treated as part of taxable turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the collection was characterised as bottle price rather than a refundable security deposit. The arrangement showed a sale of bottles with only a partial refund on return, not a true bailment. Section 2(h) brought within turnover sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at or before delivery, so the bottle charges were taxable. The ruling distinguished United Breweries on the basis that that case involved a clear bailment and refundable security, while the present facts reflected sale consideration with a conditional refund. The revisions therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:01:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162833</link>
      <description>Amounts charged for bottles were treated as part of taxable turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the collection was characterised as bottle price rather than a refundable security deposit. The arrangement showed a sale of bottles with only a partial refund on return, not a true bailment. Section 2(h) brought within turnover sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at or before delivery, so the bottle charges were taxable. The ruling distinguished United Breweries on the basis that that case involved a clear bailment and refundable security, while the present facts reflected sale consideration with a conditional refund. The revisions therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162833</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>