<?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>1960 (9) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99190</link>
    <description>Goods sent to persons described as selling agents outside the Province were held to be sales within the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 because Explanation II to section 2(g) deemed a sale to take place in Madhya Pradesh where the contract was made while the goods were within the State. The Board of Revenue had found that the contracts were concluded when the goods were situated in the Province, and that finding made the statutory deeming provision operative. A challenge that there was no material to support the finding was not entertained because no such question had been properly referred. The transactions were therefore treated as sales within Madhya Pradesh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (9) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99190</link>
      <description>Goods sent to persons described as selling agents outside the Province were held to be sales within the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 because Explanation II to section 2(g) deemed a sale to take place in Madhya Pradesh where the contract was made while the goods were within the State. The Board of Revenue had found that the contracts were concluded when the goods were situated in the Province, and that finding made the statutory deeming provision operative. A challenge that there was no material to support the finding was not entertained because no such question had been properly referred. The transactions were therefore treated as sales within Madhya Pradesh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>