<?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>2023 (7) TMI 629 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440356</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;sale price&quot; under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is broad enough to cover all valuable consideration received or receivable by a dealer, including sums charged for acts done in relation to goods and any other duty or tax. On that wording, mandi shulk recovered by a dealer from the purchaser falls within &quot;sale price&quot; because it is a statutory levy the dealer is entitled to recover. The commentary distinguishes this VAT provision from the narrower &quot;purchase price&quot; language considered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and notes that the earlier contrary Division Bench view was incorrect on that distinction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=719699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 629 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440356</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;sale price&quot; under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is broad enough to cover all valuable consideration received or receivable by a dealer, including sums charged for acts done in relation to goods and any other duty or tax. On that wording, mandi shulk recovered by a dealer from the purchaser falls within &quot;sale price&quot; because it is a statutory levy the dealer is entitled to recover. The commentary distinguishes this VAT provision from the narrower &quot;purchase price&quot; language considered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and notes that the earlier contrary Division Bench view was incorrect on that distinction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>