<?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>1950 (5) TMI 17 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127080</link>
    <description>Deduction under the Bihar sales tax provision for goods despatched outside the State depended on compliance with the statutory despatch conditions, not merely on when title passed. The majority view was that sales completed in Bihar could still qualify if the goods were despatched to an address outside Bihar by or on behalf of the dealer, and the deduction was therefore available on that issue. Separately, sales routed through a Calcutta office did not qualify as sales to a registered dealer because the relevant registration was linked to the Muzaffarpur place of business, so the deduction under the registered-dealer provision was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (5) TMI 17 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127080</link>
      <description>Deduction under the Bihar sales tax provision for goods despatched outside the State depended on compliance with the statutory despatch conditions, not merely on when title passed. The majority view was that sales completed in Bihar could still qualify if the goods were despatched to an address outside Bihar by or on behalf of the dealer, and the deduction was therefore available on that issue. Separately, sales routed through a Calcutta office did not qualify as sales to a registered dealer because the relevant registration was linked to the Muzaffarpur place of business, so the deduction under the registered-dealer provision was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>