<?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>2018 (7) TMI 514 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363206</link>
    <description>Consideration received by credit in the dealer spare parts account for replacement of vehicle parts during the warranty period was treated as sale price under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The mode of receipt, being account credit rather than cash, did not alter the character of the transaction, and the later utilisation of the credit was irrelevant because the taxable event was the replacement supply itself. The assessee&#039;s reliance on a repair-charges precedent was found inapplicable on the facts, as the case concerned replacement of parts under warranty rather than mere repair services. No substantial question of law arose, and the HC sustained the tax treatment below.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2018 07:30:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 514 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363206</link>
      <description>Consideration received by credit in the dealer spare parts account for replacement of vehicle parts during the warranty period was treated as sale price under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The mode of receipt, being account credit rather than cash, did not alter the character of the transaction, and the later utilisation of the credit was irrelevant because the taxable event was the replacement supply itself. The assessee&#039;s reliance on a repair-charges precedent was found inapplicable on the facts, as the case concerned replacement of parts under warranty rather than mere repair services. No substantial question of law arose, and the HC sustained the tax treatment below.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>