<?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 (4) TMI 94 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325980</link>
    <description>Processing and transportation charges received before delivery were treated as part of the sale price because the statutory definition covered sums charged for work done in respect of goods at or before delivery. Exemption for kerosene turned on the wording of the notification: the earlier entry covering kerosene for public distribution system use applied, but the later phrase requiring sale through the public distribution system did not cover bulk sales to oil marketing companies. LPG exemptions were similarly confined by the wording change, so pre-amendment relief was available but post-amendment bulk sales and the inter-State claim failed. Concealment penalty was not warranted, though statutory penalty based on tax difference could apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 94 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325980</link>
      <description>Processing and transportation charges received before delivery were treated as part of the sale price because the statutory definition covered sums charged for work done in respect of goods at or before delivery. Exemption for kerosene turned on the wording of the notification: the earlier entry covering kerosene for public distribution system use applied, but the later phrase requiring sale through the public distribution system did not cover bulk sales to oil marketing companies. LPG exemptions were similarly confined by the wording change, so pre-amendment relief was available but post-amendment bulk sales and the inter-State claim failed. Concealment penalty was not warranted, though statutory penalty based on tax difference could apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>