<?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 (12) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99264</link>
    <description>Transfer of kutcha delivery orders and gunnies to third parties did not amount merely to an assignment of the right to obtain delivery. A delivery order is a document of title under the Sale of Goods Act, and while the holder may transfer the right to receive the goods, the facts showed that the Mills dealt only with the appellants as contracting parties and the third parties acted only as agents for delivery. The transfer by the appellants to the third parties was separate in law and in fact from the Mills&#039; delivery, even though contemporaneous. The third parties purchased the goods for an extra price from the appellants, so the transaction was a fresh sale liable to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (12) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99264</link>
      <description>Transfer of kutcha delivery orders and gunnies to third parties did not amount merely to an assignment of the right to obtain delivery. A delivery order is a document of title under the Sale of Goods Act, and while the holder may transfer the right to receive the goods, the facts showed that the Mills dealt only with the appellants as contracting parties and the third parties acted only as agents for delivery. The transfer by the appellants to the third parties was separate in law and in fact from the Mills&#039; delivery, even though contemporaneous. The third parties purchased the goods for an extra price from the appellants, so the transaction was a fresh sale liable to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>