<?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>2022 (4) TMI 1355 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421689</link>
    <description>Freight charges separately shown in bills did not form part of taxable turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the statutory definition of turnover expressly excluded freight or delivery charges when separately charged. The HC accepted that earlier authority under the same U.P. framework had already treated separately agreed transportation charges as outside sale price and turnover, and it found reliance on a Tamil Nadu sales tax decision inapposite because the relevant U.P. provision contained a distinct exclusion. The Tribunal&#039;s view excluding such freight from turnover was left undisturbed, and the revisions were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1355 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421689</link>
      <description>Freight charges separately shown in bills did not form part of taxable turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the statutory definition of turnover expressly excluded freight or delivery charges when separately charged. The HC accepted that earlier authority under the same U.P. framework had already treated separately agreed transportation charges as outside sale price and turnover, and it found reliance on a Tamil Nadu sales tax decision inapposite because the relevant U.P. provision contained a distinct exclusion. The Tribunal&#039;s view excluding such freight from turnover was left undisturbed, and the revisions were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>