<?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>2026 (7) TMI 992 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795106</link>
    <description>Contract clauses requiring quoted rates to include taxes and duties, while reimbursing statutory tax variations on actuals, governed despite the firm-price condition. Read as a whole, the arrangement placed the tax component on the purchaser: tax increases were reimbursable to the supplier and tax reductions correspondingly benefited the purchaser. Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act applied absent a contrary contractual intention. Allowing the supplier to retain excise-duty savings without any change in cost or agreed profit would cause unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the reduced excise-duty benefit was payable to the purchaser, not refundable to the contractor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:37:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 992 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795106</link>
      <description>Contract clauses requiring quoted rates to include taxes and duties, while reimbursing statutory tax variations on actuals, governed despite the firm-price condition. Read as a whole, the arrangement placed the tax component on the purchaser: tax increases were reimbursable to the supplier and tax reductions correspondingly benefited the purchaser. Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act applied absent a contrary contractual intention. Allowing the supplier to retain excise-duty savings without any change in cost or agreed profit would cause unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the reduced excise-duty benefit was payable to the purchaser, not refundable to the contractor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>