<?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 871 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164702</link>
    <description>The court allowed all four revisions and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The court emphasized the need to determine if the freight was genuinely charged separately and whether the dealer acted as an agent or a principal for the brick-kiln owners. The court&#039;s decision was based on the interpretation of turnover and the sale price, citing relevant legal precedents. No costs were awarded in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 871 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164702</link>
      <description>The court allowed all four revisions and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The court emphasized the need to determine if the freight was genuinely charged separately and whether the dealer acted as an agent or a principal for the brick-kiln owners. The court&#039;s decision was based on the interpretation of turnover and the sale price, citing relevant legal precedents. No costs were awarded in this case.</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=164702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>