<?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>1954 (3) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127310</link>
    <description>A broker who merely brings buyer and seller together, keeps accounts only of commission, and neither takes possession of the goods nor effects the sale is not a dealer under the Madras Sales Tax Act. On those facts, the court held that tea transactions carried out directly between estates and purchasers did not make the commission agent liable to sales tax on brokerage income. The revision was allowed, and the conviction, sentence, fine, and tax demand were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:04:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (3) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127310</link>
      <description>A broker who merely brings buyer and seller together, keeps accounts only of commission, and neither takes possession of the goods nor effects the sale is not a dealer under the Madras Sales Tax Act. On those facts, the court held that tea transactions carried out directly between estates and purchasers did not make the commission agent liable to sales tax on brokerage income. The revision was allowed, and the conviction, sentence, fine, and tax demand were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>