Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for TRANSPORT CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. VS VELJAN HYDRAIR LTD. ...
Checking relevance for COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR VS ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. ...
2015 7 Supreme 530 : For the period from 28.9.1996 to 31.3.2003, freight or transportation charges incurred for the movement of excisable goods from the factory or warehouse to the buyer’s premises are not to be included in the transaction value for the purpose of calculating excise duty, regardless of who bears the cost. Specifically, for the period 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2003, the place of removal is limited to the factory premises or warehouse, and the buyer’s premises are not considered a place of removal under any circumstances. Therefore, transportation charges, even if borne by the buyer, cannot be included in the excise duty calculation.Checking relevance for Black Diamond Beverages VS Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Assessment Wing, Calcutta...
1997 8 Supreme 321 : When transportation charges are borne by the buyer, they are not considered part of the ''''money consideration'''' for the sale of goods under Section 2(d) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. This is because the test is whether the consideration is payable by the purchaser to the dealer as part of the sale price. If the buyer is contractually obligated to pay freight charges, as in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, then those charges are not included in the sale price. The court emphasized that in such cases, the payment of freight is not the obligation of the purchaser but rather a separate liability, and thus does not form part of the consideration for the sale.Checking relevance for State of A. P. VS A. P. Paper Mills LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Gas Authority Of India Limited VS Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. ...
2023 1 Supreme 578 : The contract between GAIL and IPCL explicitly states that the BUYER (IPCL) shall pay transportation charges, as applicable from time to time along the HBJ pipeline system, for the quantity of gas utilised/shrinkage. This obligation is reiterated in both Clause 4.04 and Clause 10.01 of the gas supply contract, confirming that transportation charges are borne by the buyer.Checking relevance for Gail (India) Limited VS Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. ...
2023 0 Supreme(SC) 119 : The contract between GAIL and IPCL explicitly states that the BUYER shall pay transportation charges, as applicable from time to time along the HBJ pipeline system, for the quantity of gas utilized/shrinkage. This obligation is in addition to the price of gas and is borne by the buyer over and above the price of gas, as specified in Article 10.01 of the contract.Checking relevance for Transport Corporation of India LTD. VS Veljan Hydrair LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Utkal Moulders A Proprietory Concern Of Utkal Mouldkings Pvt Ltd VS State Of Orissa...
Checking relevance for Sembcorp Energy India Limited vs Union of India...
2025 0 Supreme(AP) 208 : In F.O.B. contracts, where transportation charges are borne by the buyer, the payment of IGST on freight charges is not permissible if the freight cost has already been included in the value of goods on which IGST was paid. The court held that double taxation on the same transaction is impermissible, applying the principle established in the Supreme Court''''s judgment in Union of India & another Vs. M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., which ruled that levying tax on freight charges in C.I.F. contracts after the tax had already been collected on the cost of goods amounted to double taxation. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in B.L.A. Coke Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, [2024-VIL-1076-GUJ], specifically held that the levy and collection of I.G.S.T. on freight charges in F.O.B. contracts is not permissible, even when the buyer bears the transportation charges.