<?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 (12) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99644</link>
    <description>The constitutional entry for &quot;sale of goods&quot; was held to carry the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act, requiring a transfer of property for a price. A State could not expand that concept by deeming a dealer&#039;s own consumption of motor spirit and lubricants to be a retail sale, because such enlargement went beyond legislative competence under the relevant entry. The offending part of the definition was severable, and the assessment founded solely on that ultra vires enlargement could not stand. The extended definition and the assessment, insofar as they taxed goods consumed for the company&#039;s own vehicles, were therefore invalid and unenforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (12) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99644</link>
      <description>The constitutional entry for &quot;sale of goods&quot; was held to carry the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act, requiring a transfer of property for a price. A State could not expand that concept by deeming a dealer&#039;s own consumption of motor spirit and lubricants to be a retail sale, because such enlargement went beyond legislative competence under the relevant entry. The offending part of the definition was severable, and the assessment founded solely on that ultra vires enlargement could not stand. The extended definition and the assessment, insofar as they taxed goods consumed for the company&#039;s own vehicles, were therefore invalid and unenforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>