<?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>1996 (5) TMI 363 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104025</link>
    <description>Freely transferable REP licences and Exim scrips with present commercial value were treated as movable property and goods for sales tax purposes, because the term &quot;goods&quot; was given a broad meaning and the rights themselves were bought and sold in the market. They were not actionable claims, since they were existing marketable rights rather than mere debts or contingent claims. They also did not fall within the securities exclusion, and the State enactments were within legislative competence under the sales tax entry. The transfers were therefore taxable as sales of goods, and the challenge to State levy failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 363 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104025</link>
      <description>Freely transferable REP licences and Exim scrips with present commercial value were treated as movable property and goods for sales tax purposes, because the term &quot;goods&quot; was given a broad meaning and the rights themselves were bought and sold in the market. They were not actionable claims, since they were existing marketable rights rather than mere debts or contingent claims. They also did not fall within the securities exclusion, and the State enactments were within legislative competence under the sales tax entry. The transfers were therefore taxable as sales of goods, and the challenge to State levy failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>