<?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>2010 (4) TMI 1243 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463700</link>
    <description>A compulsory transit fee paid in advance as a condition for moving forest produce was held to form part of the &quot;sale price&quot; under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, because it was a pre-delivery amount necessarily payable in respect of the goods and not a separate post-sale charge. The Court distinguished cases involving independent charges or separate bargains and upheld inclusion of the fee in taxable turnover. A further challenge to the assessment based on the alleged invalidity of the notification levying the fee did not succeed, as that vires issue was not directly in dispute in these writ petitions and the relied-upon earlier decision had been stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:25:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 1243 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463700</link>
      <description>A compulsory transit fee paid in advance as a condition for moving forest produce was held to form part of the &quot;sale price&quot; under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, because it was a pre-delivery amount necessarily payable in respect of the goods and not a separate post-sale charge. The Court distinguished cases involving independent charges or separate bargains and upheld inclusion of the fee in taxable turnover. A further challenge to the assessment based on the alleged invalidity of the notification levying the fee did not succeed, as that vires issue was not directly in dispute in these writ petitions and the relied-upon earlier decision had been stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>