<?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 (5) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127461</link>
    <description>Where sellers packed and shipped groundnut oil from Madras while retaining shipping documents only as security for unpaid price, property was held to pass at Madras, so the sales were local and not outside the Province. Reopening of the 1945-46 assessment was barred because the later-amended escaped-assessment provisions could not operate retrospectively to displace the then-applicable one-year limit, but reassessment for 1946-47 was upheld as within the amended three-year period. The assessee&#039;s deduction claim was treated as an enforceable turnover entitlement, while rebate was denied because it applied only where delivery was in fact outside the Province.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:03:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (5) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127461</link>
      <description>Where sellers packed and shipped groundnut oil from Madras while retaining shipping documents only as security for unpaid price, property was held to pass at Madras, so the sales were local and not outside the Province. Reopening of the 1945-46 assessment was barred because the later-amended escaped-assessment provisions could not operate retrospectively to displace the then-applicable one-year limit, but reassessment for 1946-47 was upheld as within the amended three-year period. The assessee&#039;s deduction claim was treated as an enforceable turnover entitlement, while rebate was denied because it applied only where delivery was in fact outside the Province.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>