<?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 869 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164697</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the excess amount charged for freight and handling by a company manufacturing calcium carbonate should be included in the sale price for Central sales tax purposes. The Court clarified that if the cost of freight is part of the price, it falls within the definition of sale price, rendering any exclusion clause irrelevant. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to exclude the excess amount without proper reasoning was deemed incorrect, and the Court overturned it, affirming the tax imposition on the excess sale amount. The revision was allowed with costs, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was found indefensible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 869 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164697</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the excess amount charged for freight and handling by a company manufacturing calcium carbonate should be included in the sale price for Central sales tax purposes. The Court clarified that if the cost of freight is part of the price, it falls within the definition of sale price, rendering any exclusion clause irrelevant. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to exclude the excess amount without proper reasoning was deemed incorrect, and the Court overturned it, affirming the tax imposition on the excess sale amount. The revision was allowed with costs, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was found indefensible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>