<?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>1964 (4) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99816</link>
    <description>Sales are protected from State sales tax under Article 286(1)(b) only when the sale and the export form one integrated transaction and the sale itself occasions the export. Mere knowledge that the buyer intends to export, or that export quota rights are transferred with the goods, is insufficient if there is no statutory or contractual obligation making export an inseparable part of the bargain. On the facts, the sellers had no concern with the actual export after delivery, the purchasers could lawfully divert the goods, and the Tea Act only facilitated export. The majority therefore held that the transactions were sales for export, not sales in the course of export, and were taxable by the State.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99816</link>
      <description>Sales are protected from State sales tax under Article 286(1)(b) only when the sale and the export form one integrated transaction and the sale itself occasions the export. Mere knowledge that the buyer intends to export, or that export quota rights are transferred with the goods, is insufficient if there is no statutory or contractual obligation making export an inseparable part of the bargain. On the facts, the sellers had no concern with the actual export after delivery, the purchasers could lawfully divert the goods, and the Tea Act only facilitated export. The majority therefore held that the transactions were sales for export, not sales in the course of export, and were taxable by the State.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>