<?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>2009 (3) TMI 956 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164632</link>
    <description>A manufacturer&#039;s credit note issued under a warranty arrangement was not taxable as sale turnover in the dealer&#039;s hands because it was given in discharge of the manufacturer&#039;s warranty liability, not as consideration for a sale. The dealer replaced defective parts free of cost to customers, the relationship was principal to principal, and no transfer of property in goods for money consideration occurred between dealer and manufacturer. On that basis, the tax levy failed. Interest could not survive once the tax demand failed, penalty was unjustified because the transactions were duly recorded in the books, and reassessment was unsustainable as no escaped taxable turnover was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 956 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164632</link>
      <description>A manufacturer&#039;s credit note issued under a warranty arrangement was not taxable as sale turnover in the dealer&#039;s hands because it was given in discharge of the manufacturer&#039;s warranty liability, not as consideration for a sale. The dealer replaced defective parts free of cost to customers, the relationship was principal to principal, and no transfer of property in goods for money consideration occurred between dealer and manufacturer. On that basis, the tax levy failed. Interest could not survive once the tax demand failed, penalty was unjustified because the transactions were duly recorded in the books, and reassessment was unsustainable as no escaped taxable turnover was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>