<?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>2019 (9) TMI 1082 - JHARKHAND HIGH  COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386314</link>
    <description>A monthly facility charge recovered under gas supply agreements was held to form part of the sale price for VAT purposes because it was intrinsically linked to the supply, operation and maintenance of the plant, pipelines and meters used to deliver the gases. The court read the contracts as a whole and found the charge was not a standalone reimbursement, but part of the consideration for making the goods available for sale. Applying the statutory definition of sale price, it held that amounts charged for things done in respect of the goods before delivery are taxable, and a tax-avoidance arrangement could not defeat the levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1082 - JHARKHAND HIGH  COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386314</link>
      <description>A monthly facility charge recovered under gas supply agreements was held to form part of the sale price for VAT purposes because it was intrinsically linked to the supply, operation and maintenance of the plant, pipelines and meters used to deliver the gases. The court read the contracts as a whole and found the charge was not a standalone reimbursement, but part of the consideration for making the goods available for sale. Applying the statutory definition of sale price, it held that amounts charged for things done in respect of the goods before delivery are taxable, and a tax-avoidance arrangement could not defeat the levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>