<?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 (1) TMI 1479 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460346</link>
    <description>Where freight and transport charges are separately shown in the invoice and are proved to be actual expenditure incurred for or on behalf of the buyer, they are excluded from sale price and assessable value under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. The High Court accepted the factual finding that the goods were sold on an ex-work basis, the freight component was separately reflected, and no extra consideration was recovered towards transportation. On that basis, the charges could not be included in the taxable value. The revenue&#039;s precedent was distinguished because the statutory language and factual matrix were not the same.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:06:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=790367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1479 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460346</link>
      <description>Where freight and transport charges are separately shown in the invoice and are proved to be actual expenditure incurred for or on behalf of the buyer, they are excluded from sale price and assessable value under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. The High Court accepted the factual finding that the goods were sold on an ex-work basis, the freight component was separately reflected, and no extra consideration was recovered towards transportation. On that basis, the charges could not be included in the taxable value. The revenue&#039;s precedent was distinguished because the statutory language and factual matrix were not the same.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>