<?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>2010 (8) TMI 855 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165046</link>
    <description>In medicinal trade, exclusion from gross turnover for returned expired, damaged or broken medicines must be tested against contemporaneous support such as stock records, invoices, expiry particulars and the accountant&#039;s certificate required by rule 159; because that material was not properly examined, the matter was remitted for fresh assessment. Medicines imported under way-bill and later distributed as free samples for trade promotion could not be treated as intra-State sales without proper consideration of the manufacturer&#039;s approval forms and supporting explanation; this issue too was sent back for reconsideration. The impugned orders were set aside and tax liability was not finally affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 11:14:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 855 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165046</link>
      <description>In medicinal trade, exclusion from gross turnover for returned expired, damaged or broken medicines must be tested against contemporaneous support such as stock records, invoices, expiry particulars and the accountant&#039;s certificate required by rule 159; because that material was not properly examined, the matter was remitted for fresh assessment. Medicines imported under way-bill and later distributed as free samples for trade promotion could not be treated as intra-State sales without proper consideration of the manufacturer&#039;s approval forms and supporting explanation; this issue too was sent back for reconsideration. The impugned orders were set aside and tax liability was not finally affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>