<?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>1956 (4) TMI 37 - HYDERABAD, HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127501</link>
    <description>Liability to the additional rate of sales tax on silk cloth turned on whether the seller was the first dealer in the State under rule 7 read with section 4(2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950. The scheme of the Act treated physical presence in the State as necessary for a person to be regarded as a dealer for this purpose, so a non-resident seller who had not entered the State to carry on the relevant business could not be treated as a dealer merely because goods were bought from him. A contrary Madras decision was distinguished on the basis that the seller there had entered the State and executed the contracts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:27:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (4) TMI 37 - HYDERABAD, HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127501</link>
      <description>Liability to the additional rate of sales tax on silk cloth turned on whether the seller was the first dealer in the State under rule 7 read with section 4(2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950. The scheme of the Act treated physical presence in the State as necessary for a person to be regarded as a dealer for this purpose, so a non-resident seller who had not entered the State to carry on the relevant business could not be treated as a dealer merely because goods were bought from him. A contrary Madras decision was distinguished on the basis that the seller there had entered the State and executed the contracts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127501</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>