<?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>1955 (7) TMI 21 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127459</link>
    <description>Transactions that are merely brokerage or agency arrangements do not constitute sales under the Orissa Sales Tax Act because there must be a transfer of property in goods for valuable consideration. On the facts, the Calcutta dealings were supported only by commission charges, advance payments and railway receipts, which did not establish completed sales by the petitioners; sales tax liability therefore did not arise on that basis. The notification fixing the date of liability for dealers in the merged State was also held invalid because it did not comply with the statutory requirement for identifying the operative period, so it could not sustain the assessments or related enforcement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:03:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (7) TMI 21 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127459</link>
      <description>Transactions that are merely brokerage or agency arrangements do not constitute sales under the Orissa Sales Tax Act because there must be a transfer of property in goods for valuable consideration. On the facts, the Calcutta dealings were supported only by commission charges, advance payments and railway receipts, which did not establish completed sales by the petitioners; sales tax liability therefore did not arise on that basis. The notification fixing the date of liability for dealers in the merged State was also held invalid because it did not comply with the statutory requirement for identifying the operative period, so it could not sustain the assessments or related enforcement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>