<?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>2007 (1) TMI 524 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163358</link>
    <description>Tender pricing that expressly included purchase tax justified deduction from the contractor&#039;s bills where the supply orders and agreement contemplated tax-inclusive rates. The Court treated the adjustment as contractual, not a statutory deduction at source, because the deducted amount was deposited in the Government Treasury in the respondent&#039;s own name and reflected in its tax returns. Section 27 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was held inapplicable on these facts, while section 8(1)(d), Schedule V, and the definition of sale price supported the respondent&#039;s position. The deduction was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:10:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 524 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163358</link>
      <description>Tender pricing that expressly included purchase tax justified deduction from the contractor&#039;s bills where the supply orders and agreement contemplated tax-inclusive rates. The Court treated the adjustment as contractual, not a statutory deduction at source, because the deducted amount was deposited in the Government Treasury in the respondent&#039;s own name and reflected in its tax returns. Section 27 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was held inapplicable on these facts, while section 8(1)(d), Schedule V, and the definition of sale price supported the respondent&#039;s position. The deduction was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>