<?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>1951 (9) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127130</link>
    <description>Explanation II to Section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act was treated as creating a valid legal fiction by deeming sales to have taken place in the Province where the goods were actually present at the time of contract, even if the contract and transfer of property occurred elsewhere. The Court accepted that the Provincial Legislature could enact a taxing provision with an extra-territorial element where sufficient territorial nexus existed, and held that the levy remained within the sales tax field rather than becoming an excise duty. Section 297 was found not to bar the provision, and objections based on equity or double taxation did not affect its validity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (9) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127130</link>
      <description>Explanation II to Section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act was treated as creating a valid legal fiction by deeming sales to have taken place in the Province where the goods were actually present at the time of contract, even if the contract and transfer of property occurred elsewhere. The Court accepted that the Provincial Legislature could enact a taxing provision with an extra-territorial element where sufficient territorial nexus existed, and held that the levy remained within the sales tax field rather than becoming an excise duty. Section 297 was found not to bar the provision, and objections based on equity or double taxation did not affect its validity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>