<?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>2008 (8) TMI 828 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163907</link>
    <description>In a principal-to-principal sale of coal, inward freight formed part of turnover where the dealer failed to prove any agency relationship or separate contractual arrangement showing the freight as distinct from sale consideration; the Tribunal&#039;s exclusion of the freight component was therefore unsustainable. On the check-post deposit made in connection with contravention of section 28A, the character of the payment was not properly examined, as the record suggested possible composition fee or penalty while the dealer claimed it was a security deposit under departmental circulars. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the nature and legal treatment of the deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 828 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163907</link>
      <description>In a principal-to-principal sale of coal, inward freight formed part of turnover where the dealer failed to prove any agency relationship or separate contractual arrangement showing the freight as distinct from sale consideration; the Tribunal&#039;s exclusion of the freight component was therefore unsustainable. On the check-post deposit made in connection with contravention of section 28A, the character of the payment was not properly examined, as the record suggested possible composition fee or penalty while the dealer claimed it was a security deposit under departmental circulars. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the nature and legal treatment of the deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>