<?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 (10) TMI 26 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127549</link>
    <description>State taxation of the second category of inter-State sales was upheld because the levy was supported by the President&#039;s Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950 and section 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, which validated such taxation for the relevant period. Article 286(2) was treated as distinct from the restriction in Article 286(1)(a), so the earlier prohibition on outside sales did not control these transactions. Territorial nexus was also found to exist because the goods were manufactured at Monghyr, title passed there, the orders were received there, and the sale price was credited there. The levy was therefore legally valid, and no refund or mandamus was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:05:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (10) TMI 26 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127549</link>
      <description>State taxation of the second category of inter-State sales was upheld because the levy was supported by the President&#039;s Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950 and section 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, which validated such taxation for the relevant period. Article 286(2) was treated as distinct from the restriction in Article 286(1)(a), so the earlier prohibition on outside sales did not control these transactions. Territorial nexus was also found to exist because the goods were manufactured at Monghyr, title passed there, the orders were received there, and the sale price was credited there. The levy was therefore legally valid, and no refund or mandamus was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>