<?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>1962 (2) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99523</link>
    <description>An agreement naming the appellant as the non-resident company&#039;s agent, requiring it to take delivery and store castor seed on the company&#039;s behalf, advance part of the price, and hold the goods as security, showed that its role was not limited to financing. Applying the ordinary meaning of &quot;agent&quot; under section 182 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Supreme Court held that the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950 did not require any additional authority to buy on behalf of the principal before section 18 could apply. The appellant was therefore both financier and agent, and was assessable as a deemed dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (2) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99523</link>
      <description>An agreement naming the appellant as the non-resident company&#039;s agent, requiring it to take delivery and store castor seed on the company&#039;s behalf, advance part of the price, and hold the goods as security, showed that its role was not limited to financing. Applying the ordinary meaning of &quot;agent&quot; under section 182 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Supreme Court held that the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950 did not require any additional authority to buy on behalf of the principal before section 18 could apply. The appellant was therefore both financier and agent, and was assessable as a deemed dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>