<?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>1957 (1) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127639</link>
    <description>Sales effected within Bombay through a clearing agent meant the assessee carried on business as a dealer in the province, even though contracts were made at Nagpur and delivery was arranged through an agent there. On those facts, the dealer requirement under section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 was satisfied in favour of the Revenue. Where a taxable dealer failed to apply for registration, section 11(5) applied as the special provision for non-registration, and section 11A, which dealt with escaped or under-assessed turnover after returns, was inapplicable. The reference was therefore answered against the assessee on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:37:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (1) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127639</link>
      <description>Sales effected within Bombay through a clearing agent meant the assessee carried on business as a dealer in the province, even though contracts were made at Nagpur and delivery was arranged through an agent there. On those facts, the dealer requirement under section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 was satisfied in favour of the Revenue. Where a taxable dealer failed to apply for registration, section 11(5) applied as the special provision for non-registration, and section 11A, which dealt with escaped or under-assessed turnover after returns, was inapplicable. The reference was therefore answered against the assessee on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>