<?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 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127678</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was treated as extending beyond the bare assessment order to the assessment file and the material used by the assessing authority, and the revisional officer could call for books, vouchers, or supporting records to verify the assessment; the challenge on that ground failed. Sales completed by delivery within the State were held to be intra-State transactions even if the buyer later transported the goods outside the State, because that later movement did not form part of the contract of sale. Only spare parts consigned outside the State, where outward movement was integral to the sale, fell within the constitutional restriction; the remaining turnover was taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:26:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (4) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127678</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was treated as extending beyond the bare assessment order to the assessment file and the material used by the assessing authority, and the revisional officer could call for books, vouchers, or supporting records to verify the assessment; the challenge on that ground failed. Sales completed by delivery within the State were held to be intra-State transactions even if the buyer later transported the goods outside the State, because that later movement did not form part of the contract of sale. Only spare parts consigned outside the State, where outward movement was integral to the sale, fell within the constitutional restriction; the remaining turnover was taxable.</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=127678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>