<?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>2016 (1) TMI 870 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271078</link>
    <description>Sale of natural gas was treated as completed offshore when the goods were separated, measured and appropriated at the delivery point under the governing contracts; later sweetening at Hazira did not change the situs, so the transaction was outside Gujarat and not liable to Gujarat sales tax. The movement of gas from the offshore area to Hazira was also held not to be import into India, as the area fell within an extended customs regime. Reassessment was struck down because the authority had already examined the same agreements and replies, and reopening on identical material amounted to a mere change of opinion. The writ petitions were maintainable despite an alternative remedy because the challenge was jurisdictional.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 870 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271078</link>
      <description>Sale of natural gas was treated as completed offshore when the goods were separated, measured and appropriated at the delivery point under the governing contracts; later sweetening at Hazira did not change the situs, so the transaction was outside Gujarat and not liable to Gujarat sales tax. The movement of gas from the offshore area to Hazira was also held not to be import into India, as the area fell within an extended customs regime. Reassessment was struck down because the authority had already examined the same agreements and replies, and reopening on identical material amounted to a mere change of opinion. The writ petitions were maintainable despite an alternative remedy because the challenge was jurisdictional.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>