<?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 (11) TMI 26 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127683</link>
    <description>A transaction constitutes a sale for sales tax purposes when property in the goods passes, not merely when there is an agreement to sell future goods. On the facts, the assessees bought goods from mills and then separately sold the ascertained goods to third parties; the documents showed them as buyer in the first arrangement and seller in the second, with delivery postponed and payment made against mill letters. The kucha delivery order was treated as an instruction for delivery, not a mere assignment of a chose in action. The court therefore treated the arrangements as two distinct sales, making the second sale taxable and rejecting the claim that only one sale occurred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:14:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (11) TMI 26 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127683</link>
      <description>A transaction constitutes a sale for sales tax purposes when property in the goods passes, not merely when there is an agreement to sell future goods. On the facts, the assessees bought goods from mills and then separately sold the ascertained goods to third parties; the documents showed them as buyer in the first arrangement and seller in the second, with delivery postponed and payment made against mill letters. The kucha delivery order was treated as an instruction for delivery, not a mere assignment of a chose in action. The court therefore treated the arrangements as two distinct sales, making the second sale taxable and rejecting the claim that only one sale occurred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>