<?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>1958 (2) TMI 31 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127721</link>
    <description>A distribution agreement was construed to determine whether cement supplied by the manufacturer to the Cement Marketing Company amounted to sales under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The Court found that the Marketing Company had exclusive selling rights, fixed resale prices and terms on its own, paid the manufacturer a fixed basic price on delivery, and was not accountable for resale proceeds. These features showed a vendor-purchaser relationship, not a principal-agent arrangement, and clause 24 on surplus profits did not change that legal character. The cement delivered to the Marketing Company was therefore treated as sales to that company and subject to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:50:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (2) TMI 31 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127721</link>
      <description>A distribution agreement was construed to determine whether cement supplied by the manufacturer to the Cement Marketing Company amounted to sales under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The Court found that the Marketing Company had exclusive selling rights, fixed resale prices and terms on its own, paid the manufacturer a fixed basic price on delivery, and was not accountable for resale proceeds. These features showed a vendor-purchaser relationship, not a principal-agent arrangement, and clause 24 on surplus profits did not change that legal character. The cement delivered to the Marketing Company was therefore treated as sales to that company and subject to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>