<?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>1983 (11) TMI 328 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102158</link>
    <description>The Orissa Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road and Inland Waterways) Act, 1959 treated liability as attaching to a dealer, and the explanation deemed the manager or agent of a dealer residing outside Orissa to be a dealer for assessment purposes. The Court held that the agent itself need not have a place of business or residence in Orissa; it was sufficient that it carried on storage and related operations for a non-resident principal within the State. Residence was relevant only for the principal dealer, and for a company that depended on the location of its actual management and central control. As the principal companies were managed and controlled from Calcutta, they were non-resident dealers in Orissa, and the assessment against the appellant-company was valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2014 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 328 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102158</link>
      <description>The Orissa Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road and Inland Waterways) Act, 1959 treated liability as attaching to a dealer, and the explanation deemed the manager or agent of a dealer residing outside Orissa to be a dealer for assessment purposes. The Court held that the agent itself need not have a place of business or residence in Orissa; it was sufficient that it carried on storage and related operations for a non-resident principal within the State. Residence was relevant only for the principal dealer, and for a company that depended on the location of its actual management and central control. As the principal companies were managed and controlled from Calcutta, they were non-resident dealers in Orissa, and the assessment against the appellant-company was valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>